- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Deadly force to protect property not legal in this state
Posted on 5/19/11 at 9:58 am to JudgeHolden
Posted on 5/19/11 at 9:58 am to JudgeHolden
You're right about the immunity though, which I meant to address further. The situation is frustrating.
So, (and this is for the reader) assuming your actions are proper, even though you are "immune", suit can still be filed, you will have to respond, either by Answer or Exception, (depending on how artfully the Petition is written). As much as anyone could predict, but assuming all facts are favorable, you should be able to obtain dismissal either by Exception or Summary Judgment. All of which cost money. I guess that's where 19(B) comes in, to dissuade frivilous or base less suits.
I would advise anyone involved in such a situation to contact the NRA, who may provide legal services as part of their Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. Hereis a list of cases they have been involved in.
So, (and this is for the reader) assuming your actions are proper, even though you are "immune", suit can still be filed, you will have to respond, either by Answer or Exception, (depending on how artfully the Petition is written). As much as anyone could predict, but assuming all facts are favorable, you should be able to obtain dismissal either by Exception or Summary Judgment. All of which cost money. I guess that's where 19(B) comes in, to dissuade frivilous or base less suits.
I would advise anyone involved in such a situation to contact the NRA, who may provide legal services as part of their Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. Hereis a list of cases they have been involved in.
1
Posted on 5/19/11 at 10:11 am to USMCTiger03
We have heard great interpretation of La. law.
That should let a lot of folks sleep a little easier when it comes to protecting their families. At least cause some to think out the scenarios that would be acceptable and those that would not be. Maybe that knowledge will take a little heat out of a confrontation that isn't up to the standard for justifiable homicide.
On the other hand, I bet this thread (read the title and OP) got some so fired up they got their ammo out and started counting. Hope no bubba died cleaning his gun. I wonder how much gas people in the flooded areas are leaving behind in their tractors? shhh
That should let a lot of folks sleep a little easier when it comes to protecting their families. At least cause some to think out the scenarios that would be acceptable and those that would not be. Maybe that knowledge will take a little heat out of a confrontation that isn't up to the standard for justifiable homicide.
On the other hand, I bet this thread (read the title and OP) got some so fired up they got their ammo out and started counting. Hope no bubba died cleaning his gun. I wonder how much gas people in the flooded areas are leaving behind in their tractors? shhh
Posted on 5/19/11 at 10:39 am to JudgeHolden
From Hattori,
Would be interesting to see what Farm Bureau filed and whether or not anything further was collected.
quote:
Following a four-day trial on September 12-15, 1994, the trial judge rendered judgment in favor of Yoshi's parents, Masaichi and Mieko Hattori (the Hattoris) finding Rodney Peairs to be solidarily liable with his homeowner's insurer, Louisiana Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Farm Bureau), in the amount of $653,077.85 together with legal interest and costs. Farm Bureau's liability was subject to the $100,000.00 coverage limitations of its policy.
Farm Bureau subsequently tendered its policy limits plus interest;
Would be interesting to see what Farm Bureau filed and whether or not anything further was collected.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 10:53 am to USMCTiger03
I think that a person's view on self defense and the need to be armed can depend a lot on where you live. Growing up in a rural area where on a good day it would take law enforcement at least twenty minutes to get to my house, we kept a pistol in our home where we could access it easily. As a child I was taught to use and respect guns at a very early age. It was a necessity of life.
Now that I live in an urban area, the only guns I have are for hunting and they are locked away. Instead we have an alarm system that goes straight to the police department. It works well, as I know from my kids accidentally setting it off. The cops were there in a few minutes.
Now that I live in an urban area, the only guns I have are for hunting and they are locked away. Instead we have an alarm system that goes straight to the police department. It works well, as I know from my kids accidentally setting it off. The cops were there in a few minutes.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 10:56 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Farm Bureau subsequently tendered its policy limits plus interest;
I just can't remember, but do you cut off the duty to defend once you have tendered the limits?
Posted on 5/19/11 at 11:01 am to JudgeHolden
I think Pareti says maybe, maybe not:
We hold, therefore, that once the liability insurer exhausted its policy limits through a good faith settlement, it was no longer obligated to defend the insured in the separate action based on the same accident. We do not suggest, however, that a liability insurer's duty to defend its insured will always be discharged by exhaustion of its policy limits. As discussed further below, our holding today is premised upon both the language of the policy before us and the facts of this particular case.
We hold, therefore, that once the liability insurer exhausted its policy limits through a good faith settlement, it was no longer obligated to defend the insured in the separate action based on the same accident. We do not suggest, however, that a liability insurer's duty to defend its insured will always be discharged by exhaustion of its policy limits. As discussed further below, our holding today is premised upon both the language of the policy before us and the facts of this particular case.
Posted on 5/19/11 at 11:02 am to JudgeHolden
quote:The policies usually say you can, but my clients never do. In that case, it was after trial, and two attorneys appear on the appeal for 'defendants'. They were being paid through appeal.
I just can't remember, but do you cut off the duty to defend once you have tendered the limits?
Posted on 5/19/11 at 11:29 am to AlxTgr
quote:That's my experience/observation as well, that although the Insurer technically could cut off defense when policy limits are tendered, they rarely do unless there are other factors involved...
quote:
I just can't remember, but do you cut off the duty to defend once you have tendered the limits?
The policies usually say you can, but my clients never do. In that case, it was after trial, and two attorneys appear on the appeal for 'defendants'. They were being paid through appeal
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News