State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Grimm
630 So. 2d 970, 92 La.App. 3 Cir. 1275, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3, 1994 WL 14485
Opinion
For the reasons expressed in Ourso v. Grimm, 630 So.2d 963 (La.App. 3d Cir.1993), the judgment in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company is affirmed, as amended.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
KNOLL, J., concurs for reasons assigned in Ourso v. Grimm.
SAUNDERS, J., dissents for reasons assigned in Ourso v. Grimm.
WOODARD, ^J., concurs for reasons assigned by KNOLL, J., in Ourso v. Grimm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Grimm, 630 So. 2d 970, 92 La.App. 3 Cir. 1275, 1994 La. App. LEXIS 3, 1994 WL 14485 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
630 So. 2d 970 (State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Grimm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Ourso v. Grimm
630 So. 2d 963 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)