Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Skipper v. Federal Insurance Company, 116 So. 2d 520.

29 citing documents.

Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher 531 So. 2d 450 La. 1988
Norred v. Commercial Union Ins. Co. 526 So. 2d 829 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Ferrara v. Strain 497 So. 2d 1077 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1986
Boudreaux v. Ultramar Enterprises, Inc. 464 So. 2d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Ottermann v. Ganus 444 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
The cases cited for this proposition, , (1959) and Gulf Coast Inv.
Ardoin v. Audubon Ins. Co. 434 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
C; , (1959); Cuccia v. Allstate Insurance Company, 262 La.
Aultman v. Rinicker 416 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1982
Raymond v. United Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n 325 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Co., , (1959) in support of his argument.
Powers Regulator Co. v. Murphy's Plumbing Service, Inc. 311 So. 2d 503 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Corp., La., (1973); , (1959).
IC Realty, Inc. v. CLIFTON CONDUIT COMPANY, ETC. 291 So. 2d 422 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1974
Broadway v. All-Star Insurance Corporation 285 So. 2d 536 La. 1973
(1959), proof of the deposit in the mails creates only a prima facie presumption of delivery under LSA-R.S.
Brewster v. Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Co. 274 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
778 , (1959) in which plaintiff sued a different insurer under a policy covering another house on the same lot as that in the quoted case.
Broadway v. All-Star Insurance Corp. 267 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
22:636), the burden of proof is on the insurer to show that the insured has received notice of cancellation of a policy issued by it in order that the insurer may be relieved of liability.” We then cited the following cases as examples of such holdings: , ; Long v. Home Indemnity Co. of New York, 169 So.
Cuccia v. Allstate Insurance Company 263 So. 2d 884 La. 1972
Harang v. Sparacino 257 So. 2d 785 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
It would appear that possibly some confusion has arisen on the question of proof of proper mailing versus receipt out of reliance in many cases on the oft quoted statement in Skipper v. Federal Insurance *792 Company, , (1959), appearing at : "While it is true that there is a prima facie presumption of delivery under the statute quoted above upon proof of proper mailing, this presumption is rebuttable by positive evidence of lack of delivery or receipt.
Vest v. Richardson 253 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1959); Breitenbach v. Green, La.App., (4th Cir. 1966).
Cuccia v. Allstate Insurance Co. 250 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
the Court applied the rule for rebuttal of the prima facie presumption by positive evidence of lack of delivery or receipt.
Vidrine v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co. 247 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
Co., , , in support of his contention.
Pellets, Inc. v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance Co. 241 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
1 Cir. 1962), ; , (1959).
Breckenridge v. Dalon 229 So. 2d 221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(1959), the court decided that the presumption had been rebutted because the cancellation notice was not addressed to the latest address of the insured as known to the agent of the insurer and that this knowledge was imputed to the insurer.
Townzen v. Allstate Insurance Company 188 So. 2d 474 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Long v. Home Indemnity Co. of New York (La.App., 2 Cir., 1936), 169 So.
Breitenbach v. Green 186 So. 2d 712 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
Co., , (1959); and Ellzey v. Hardware Mut.
Universal CIT Corp. v. Kennedy 185 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Skipper v. Federal Insurance Company (1959) , , our Supreme Court said: "In cases where the insurer defends on the ground of cancellation, the insurer carries the burden of establishing the facts which relieve or limit its liability."
Urania Lumber Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America 177 So. 2d 640 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Skipper v. Federal Insurance Co. , ; Mathews v. Marquette Cas.
Hospital Service Dist. No. 1 v. Delta Gas, Inc. 171 So. 2d 293 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
Co., , ; Paz v. Implement Dealers Mutual Ins.
Burrough v. United States Casualty Co. 170 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Co., So.2d 520 ; Ellzey v. Hardware Mutual Ins.
Anderson v. Fontenot 163 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1964
in considering the above quoted statute, the court stated that the burden of proof was on the insurer to show that the insured had received notice of cancellation of a policy issued by it in order that the insurer may be relieved of liability.
Alexander v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. 148 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
which cites with approval the case of Long v. Home Indemnity Company of New York, La.App., 169 So.
American Surety Co. of New York v. Fowler 135 So. 2d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
* * * In cases where the insurer defends on the ground of cancellation, the insurer carries the burden of establishing the facts which .relieve or limit its liability,” So.2d 520, 523, 524 .