Stevenson v. Wright Waterproofing Co. & Indemnity Insurance

W.D. Louisiana

Stevenson v. Wright Waterproofing Co. & Indemnity Insurance

91 F. Supp. 960, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2863

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana

DecidedAugust 7, 1950

DocketCiv. A. No. 2845

StatusPublished

This text of 91 F. Supp. 960 (Stevenson v. Wright Waterproofing Co. & Indemnity Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stevenson v. Wright Waterproofing Co. & Indemnity Insurance, 91 F. Supp. 960, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2863 (W.D. La. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

DAWKINS, Chief Judge.

This case involves the identical questions disposed of in Bouis v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, D.C., 183 F.Supp. 954, except that there the cause of action grew out of negligence alleged to have been committed in the manufacture of shotguns in another state; whereas, here, the alleged injuries to complainant arose from an automobile collision in this state while the insured was performing a contract in Louisiana, and who was protected against liability by the insurer defendant in this case. However, this would make no difference in the result, and it is not.believed the court is called upon to review again the law merely for the purposes of differentiation.

For the reasons stated in the Bouis case, the motion to dismiss and the plea of unconstitutionality will be overruled.

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

DAWKINS, Chief Judge.

This case involves the identical questions disposed of in Bouis v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, D.C., 183 F.Supp. 954, except that there the cause of action grew out of negligence alleged to have been committed in the manufacture of shotguns in another state; whereas, here, the alleged injuries to complainant arose from an automobile collision in this state while the insured was performing a contract in Louisiana, and who was protected against liability by the insurer defendant in this case. However, this would make no difference in the result, and it is not.believed the court is called upon to review again the law merely for the purposes of differentiation.

For the reasons stated in the Bouis case, the motion to dismiss and the plea of unconstitutionality will be overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 F. Supp. 960, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2863, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevenson-v-wright-waterproofing-co-indemnity-insurance-lawd-1950.