Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Carrano v. Colombel, 114 So. 637.

27 citing documents.

Martin v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 367 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
741 , (1927); Pruitt v. Great Southern Life Ins.
Spain v. Travelers Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 827 La. 1976
741 , (1927); Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial L. Ins.
Ducote v. Life Insurance Company of Louisiana 245 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
741 , (1927); and Pruitt v. Great Southern Life Insurance Co., 202 La.
Borer v. Security Industrial Life Insurance Co. 245 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
741 , , the beneficiary of a life policy suing for policy benefits was resisted on the claim that the insured was not in good health on the policy date.
Audubon Life Insurance Co. v. Lauzervich 242 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
741 , , followed by Pruitt *592 v. Great Southern Life Ins.
Aucoin v. First National Life Insurance 204 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
741 , , followed by Pruitt v. Great Southern Life Ins.
Zimmerman v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
741 , .” (Emphasis added.)
Quartararo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Meaux v. Southern Construction Corporation 159 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
741 , , and in James v. Bowen, La.App.Orl., .
Lafleur v. All American Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
741 , ; Pruitt v. Great Southern Life Insurance Co., 202 La.
Broussard v. Fidelity Standard Life Insurance Co. 146 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
741 , (1927) in which the insured, also an agent of the defendant, knowingly colluded with another agent to obtain a life insurance policy at a time when the insured was not in good health.
Matthews v. National Life & Accident Insurance 88 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
741 , , in which the court interpreted a policy provision which read as follows: “ ‘No obligation is assumed by the company prior to the date hereof, nor unless on said date the insured is alive and in sound health.’ ” The effect of the holding of the court was to sustain the condition and limitation included in the po
James v. Bowen 69 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
Moll v. Mutual Health Ben. & Acc. Ass'n 66 So. 2d 320 La. 1953
Pruitt v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co. 12 So. 2d 261 La. 1942
Continental Casualty Co. v. Monvoison 195 So. 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1940
741 , , 639: “When, in an insurance policy, it is declared to be the complete and only evidence of the contract between the company and the insured, there is no reason why any of its stipulations, if unambiguous and reasonable and such as the parties are competent to make, should not be as effective as they would be in any
Succession of Dekan v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 172 So. 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
741, 742 , , wherein it was held that limitations upon the authority of insurance agents in dealing with prospective policyholders were reasonable and valid and not against public policy, is said to be a decision of our Supreme Court directly in point because it involves “an industrial life insurance policy.
McTague v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 166 So. 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
Wills v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins. Co. 159 So. 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
742 , , wherein it is held that only notice to, or knowledge of, agents with power to contract is imputed to the principal; and that notice to solicitors or other intermediaries *143 is not notice to their employers.
McBride v. Acme Industrial Life Ins. Soc. 154 So. 741 La. 1934
741 , ; Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins.
Peterson v. Pacific Fire Ins. Co. 148 So. 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Callan v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 147 So. 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
741 , , the court was considering a policy of industrial life insurance which contained *112 a clause to the effect that no “obligation is assumed by the company prior to the date hereof, nor unless on said date the insured is alive and in sound health,” the defense being that at the time of the issuance of the policy
Brown v. Life Casualty Ins. Co. 146 So. 332 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Community Stores of Louisiana, Inc. v. Associated Indemnity Corp. 144 So. 909 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
741 , , the Supreme Court again had before it for- consideration the question of a waiver of the terms of a policy by an agent and of its binding effect on the company.
Kinchen v. Royal Exchange Assurance 134 So. 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
741 , , *338 in commenting on the Gitz Sash Factory decision, the court said that: “The ruling in that case, by a majority of the members of the court, was founded, in' some measure at least, upon the fact that the agent who wrote the policy was a general agent of the company, and upon the assumption, therefore, that h
Williams v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. 130 So. 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
741 , ; Fisette v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 162 La.
Succession of Dahm 120 So. 58 La. 1929