Legal Opinion

Oliver v. Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Ins. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided April 3, 2013No. 12-1414Published

1Opinion of the Court

PICKETT, Judge.

|, Intervening employer appeals the trial court’s holding that its intervention recovery was subject to Moody fees,1 although the employer did not consent to the settlement of the plaintiffs claims. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

Dwayne Oliver2 filed a tort suit against Tokio Marine & Nichido Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Abrasive Products & Equipment, LP, and Brody Breaux (jointly hereinafter referenced as “Tokio”) to recover damages for personal injuries and other losses he sustained in an automobile accident which occurred while he was in the course and scope of his…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Ferry v. Holmes & Barnes, Ltd.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1929
  2. Moody v. ArabieSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1986
  3. Eakin v. United Technology Corp.District Court, S.D. Florida · 1998
  4. Ferrell Lavergne Eagle Pacific Insurance Co. v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2002
  5. Lavergne v. Quality Fabricators of Eunice, Inc.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API