Huval v. Chaisson
This text of 167 So. 3d 617 (Huval v. Chaisson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| granted. The evidence introduced at the hearing indicates relators had $11 million in primary and excess insurance coverage. Plaintiffs conceded this available insurance was sufficient to cover their maximum recoverable damages. Under these circumstances, we find plaintiffs acted in bad faith in naming their uninsured motorist carrier as a defendant. See Wimberly v. Brown, 05-1589 (La.1/9/06), 918 So.2d 1020; Farrar v. Haedicke, 97-2923 (La.12/2/97), 702 So.2d 690, 691.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court denying relators’' exception of improper venue is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with instructions to transfer the action to a court of proper venue pursuant to La.Code Civ. P. art. 121.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
167 So. 3d 617, 2015 La. LEXIS 1479, 2015 WL 3993819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/huval-v-chaisson-la-2015.