
    Ronald A. NEWMAN, et al v. ST. BERNARD PARISH SHERIFF’S OFFICE, et al.
    No. CA 8806.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    March 10, 1988.
    Rehearing Denied April 13, 1988.
    
      R. Ray Orrill, Jr., Robert F. Shearman, Yiki A. Williams, Orrill & Shearman, New Orleans, for plaintiff.
    Joseph R. Ward, Jr., Patrick F. Lee, Ward & Clesi, New Orleans, for defendant.
    Before SCHOTT, WARD and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
   ARMSTRONG, Judge.

Insurance company defendant appeals from a judgment holding it solidarily liable as the insurer of another named defendant. The insurance company contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the plaintiffs failed to introduce at trial any evidence establishing insurance coverage. We disagree, and we affirm.

The appellees, Ronald A. Newman and Rebekeh Newman, sustained injuries while stopped in traffic when they were rear-ended by a car driven by Gladue J. Istre, a deputy sheriff with the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Istre was on duty at the time of the accident and was driving a car owned by the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. The Newmans sued Istre, the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff's Office, and the U.S. Fire Insurance Company (“U.S.”) for injuries caused by the collision.

After trial by jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the Newmans, and against the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office and U.S. in the amount of $203,-880.00 exclusive of legal interest and costs. In this appeal, U.S. contends that the judgment as to them should be reversed because the Newmans failed to introduce evidence at trial to establish insurance coverage.

It is true that no insurance policy, and no testimony regarding insurance coverage, was introduced at trial. However, the Newmans did introduce, without objection by counsel for the defendants, a copy of the accident report. That report lists U.S. as the automobile insurer of the St. Bernard Parish Sheriff’s Office. Accordingly, we fail to see why U.S. contends that no evidence regarding insurance was admitted at trial. Of course, this was perhaps not the ideal way to prove insurance coverage. Nevertheless, it is sufficient to sustain the judgment under the circumstances of this case. Finding no manifest error, we affirm.

SCHOTT, J., concurs.

SCHOTT, Judge,

concurring:

I agree with the majority that the police report which was received in evidence without objection by U.S. and identifies U.S. as the liability insurer provided a basis for the jury to conclude that U.S. was probably the liability insurer of the Sheriff’s Office.

After defendant rested and before the case went to the jury the following colloquy occurred in chambers:

“THE COURT:
Wait. I have one other thing before we go out there. The insurance policy has not been introduced. What will happen here?
MR. WARD:
I don’t know what he wants to do.
THE COURT:
I mean if you have — in case for some reason it gets higher up, and I am not saying it will, but, you never know. I don’t let the jury see the declaration sheet. If you have it, that is against my policy.
MR. WARD:
Judge, he has not put on evidence of coverage. I don’t think I have to worry about putting a policy in evidence. Anyway, if he has rested, I am willing to rest and if I get blasted, I get blasted. Since he did not put evidence in, I don’t think I can be susceptible to excess judgment.”

This does not suggest that U.S. was making an issue over coverage. Counsel for plaintiff argues that he was led to believe from the above statement, some remarks made in U.S.’s opening statement to the jury, and the information contained in the police report that the formal offer of the policy was unnecessary.

Under all these circumstances I believe that an affirmation of the judgment is supported by C.C.P. art. 2164 which requires the appellate court to render any judgment which is just, legal, and proper upon the record on appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      .The judgment against the St. Bernard Parish Sheriffs Office subsequently was annulled for reasons unrelated to this appeal. The judgment against U.S., however, was retained.
     
      
      . See plaintiffs’ exhibit 16; Trial transcript at 190.
     
      
      . See Arceneaux v. Dominque, 365 So.2d 1330, 1333 (La.1978); rehearing denied (1979).
     