Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Kimbell Milling Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Kimbell Milling Co.

164 So. 2d 642, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 1700

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMay 28, 1964

DocketNo. 1140

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 2d 642 (Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Kimbell Milling Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Kimbell Milling Co., 164 So. 2d 642, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 1700 (La. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinions

TATE, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with the companion case of Simpson v. Kimbell Milling Co., 164 So.2d 637 (Docket No. 1138), rendered by us this same date. The present suit is a subrogation claim by the collision insurer of the vehicle driven by Simpson, plaintiff in the companion suit. The present plaintiff insurer’s right to recovery, and all issues of the trial and of the appeal, are identical with the issues in the companion Simpson suit. •

For the reasons stated in the companion appeal, the trial court’s judgment herein is amended so as to strike out the findings that the defendants were guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff’s assured was guilty of contributory negligence; as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects. The plaintiff-appellee to pay all costs of this appeal.

Amended and affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TATE, Judge.

This suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with the companion case of Simpson v. Kimbell Milling Co., 164 So.2d 637 (Docket No. 1138), rendered by us this same date. The present suit is a subrogation claim by the collision insurer of the vehicle driven by Simpson, plaintiff in the companion suit. The present plaintiff insurer’s right to recovery, and all issues of the trial and of the appeal, are identical with the issues in the companion Simpson suit. •

For the reasons stated in the companion appeal, the trial court’s judgment herein is amended so as to strike out the findings that the defendants were guilty of negligence and that the plaintiff’s assured was guilty of contributory negligence; as thus amended, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects. The plaintiff-appellee to pay all costs of this appeal.

Amended and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 2d 642, 1964 La. App. LEXIS 1700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-fire-insurance-v-kimbell-milling-co-lactapp-1964.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack