Newman v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Newman v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office

522 So. 2d 175, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 822, 1988 WL 20752

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 10, 1988

DocketNo. CA 8806

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 522 So. 2d 175 (Newman v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office) 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

Newman v. St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office, 522 So. 2d 175, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 822, 1988 WL 20752 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinions

ARMSTRONG, Judge.

Insurance company defendant appeals from a judgment holding it solidarily liable as the insurer of another named defendant. The insurance company contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to introduce at trial any evidence establishing insurance coverage. We disagree, and we affirm.

The appellees, Ronald A. Newman and Rebekeh Newman, sustained injuries while stopped in traffic when they were rear-ended by a car driven by Gladue J. Istre, a deputy sheriff with the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Istre was on duty at the time of the accident and was driving a car owned by the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. The Newmans sued Istre, the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office, and the U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S.”) for injuries caused by the collision.

After trial by jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the Newmans, and against the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office and U.S. in the amount of $203,-880.00 exclusive of legal interest and costs.¹ In this appeal, U.S. contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the Newmans failed to introduce evidence at trial to establish insurance coverage.

It is true that no insurance policy, and no testimony regarding insurance coverage, was introduced at trial. However, the Newmans did introduce, without objection by counsel for the defendants, a copy of the accident report.² That report lists U.S. as the automobile insurer of the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Accordingly, we fail to see why U.S. contends that no evidence regarding insurance was admitted at trial. Of course, this was perhaps not the ideal way to prove insurance coverage. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to sustain the judgment under the circumstances of this case. Finding no manifest error³, we affirm.

SCHOTT, J., concurs.

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

ARMSTRONG, Judge.

Insurance company defendant appeals from a judgment holding it solidarily liable as the insurer of another named defendant. The insurance company contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to introduce at trial any evidence establishing insurance coverage. We disagree, and we affirm.

The appellees, Ronald A. Newman and Rebekeh Newman, sustained injuries while stopped in traffic when they were rear-ended by a car driven by Gladue J. Istre, a deputy sheriff with the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Istre was on duty at the time of the accident and was driving a car owned by the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. The Newmans sued Istre, the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office, and the U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S.”) for injuries caused by the collision.

After trial by jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the Newmans, and against the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office and U.S. in the amount of $203,-880.00 exclusive of legal interest and costs.¹ In this appeal, U.S. contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the Newmans failed to introduce evidence at trial to establish insurance coverage.

It is true that no insurance policy, and no testimony regarding insurance coverage, was introduced at trial. However, the Newmans did introduce, without objection by counsel for the defendants, a copy of the accident report.² That report lists U.S. as the automobile insurer of the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Accordingly, we fail to see why U.S. contends that no evidence regarding insurance was admitted at trial. Of course, this was perhaps not the ideal way to prove insurance coverage. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to sustain the judgment under the circumstances of this case. Finding no manifest error³, we affirm.

SCHOTT, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 So. 2d 175, 1988 La. App. LEXIS 822, 1988 WL 20752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-st-bernard-parish-sheriffs-office-lactapp-1988.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack