
    Margaret Mitchell CLARK, et al., Plaintiff, v. CITGO PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff—Appellee, Yeargin, Inc. (Formerly Known as Project Construction Corporation) and Continental Casualty Company, Third Party Defendants—Appellants.
    No. 95-1575.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 1997.
    Order Clarifying Decision on Limited Grant of Rehearing April 9, 1997.
    William M. Nolen, William Brock Swift, Robert Joseph Tete, Lake Charles, for Citgo Petroleum Corporation, et al.
    Edmund M. Kneisel, Atlanta, GA, Keith Michael Borne, Lafayette, John A. Stewart, Jr., New Orleans, for Yeargin Inc., etc.
    Christopher M. Trahan, Lake Charles, for St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company.
    
      Before WOODARD, PETERS and SULLIVAN, JJ.
   SULLIVAN, Judge.

For the reasons assigned m the case of Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Yeargin, Inc. and Continental Casualty Company, 95-1574 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/19/97); 690 So.2d 154, which was consolidated with this case, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, amended in part and rendered.

Costs of this appeal are assessed to Citgo Petroleum Corporation.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART; AND RENDERED.

ON REHEARING

We have granted Citgo Petroleum Corporation’s application for rehearing for the limited purpose of clarifying the issue of legal interest. Our opinion decreed that “CNA’s obligation for settlements entered into by Citgo, INA, U.S. Fire and CIGNA is reduced from $4,964,332.66 to $1,875,000.00 plus interest from date of judicial demand until paid.” We also held that CNA’s obligation for costs of defense is subject to interest from judicial demand until paid. Mover correctly points out that the “date of judicial demand” is different for each of the originally settled cases filed by the injured claimants. Therefore, we amend the prior decree and order that CNA’s obligation is subject to legal interest from the particular dates of judicial demand of each personal injury claimant’s suit.

In all other respects, Citgo’s motion for rehearing is denied.  