Legal Opinion
Mohr v. Lloyds of London
Louisiana Court of Appeal
Decided February 12, 1987No. CA-6057PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHOTT, Judge.
This is a suit by Elizabeth Mohr, plaintiff, for underinsured motorist (UM) benefits against two insurers, State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) and Underwriters at Lloyd’s and Companies (Underwriters). The trial court dismissed plaintiff’s suit on exceptions of prescription, no cause of action, and no right of action filed by Underwriters; and exceptions of res judicata, no cause of action, and no right of action filed by State Farm. From these judgments plaintiff has appealed. The only issue is whether the trial court properly sustained the exceptions.
Plaintiff…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hoefly v. Government Employees Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1982
- Robinson v. North American Royalties, Inc.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1985
- Southern American Ins. Co. v. DobsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1983
- Joanna Garmany, by and Through Her Next Friends v. Mission Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
3Cited by3 opinions
- Mohr v. State Farm Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1988
- Mohr v. State Farm Insurance Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1987
- Adams v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Ltd.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1988