648 F.2d 446 (5th Cir. 1981), 79-3703, Fenasci v. Travelers Insurance Co.
|Citation:||648 F.2d 446|
|Party Name:||Mrs. Constance A. FENASCI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross Appellants, Employers National Insurance Co., Intervenor-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.|
|Case Date:||June 18, 1981|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|
Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, John C. Combe, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Travelers Ins. Co.
John Paul Massicot, New Orleans, La., for Constance A. Fenasci et al.
Young & Mars, W. W. Young, III, Theodore A. Mars, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Rita Breitling Cook et al.
Monroe & Lemann, Steven O. Medo, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Marie T. Bannon et al.
Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer & Matthews, Albert H. Hanemann, Jr., New Orleans, La., for Employers National Ins. Co.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
(Opinion April 17, 1981, 5 Cir. 1981, 642 F.2d 986)
Before BROWN, POLITZ and TATE, Circuit Judges.
Appellant contends that in deciding the "stacking" issue adverse to it our decision, inter alia, ignores dispositive Louisiana jurisprudence, particularly the intermediate appellate court decision in Briley v. Falati, 367 So.2d 1227 (La.App.1979). We disagree. In this diversity case we are to apply the law of Louisiana. We conclude the decision relied on by the district court, Holmes v. Reliance Ins. Co., 359 So.2d 1102 (La.App.1978), is controlling Louisiana law, more consistent with the rationale of decisions by the Louisiana Supreme Court, such as its decision in Deane v. McGee, 261 La. 686, 260 So.2d 669 (1972) which we cited. We do not agree that the decision in Briley v. Falati requires that we reject...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP