Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State of Louisiana v. Farnsworth, 110 So. 880.

24 citing documents.

Suluki v. Veterans Life Ins. Co. 681 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
620 , (1926) and Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins.
Estate of Borer v. Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Co. 398 So. 2d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
620 , (1926); and Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Ins.
Johnson v. Occidental Life Ins. Co. of Cal. 368 So. 2d 1032 La. 1979
620 , (1926) for the proposition that "[t]he Entire Contract Policy Statute must be construed literally so as to require actual physical attachment of the insured's application to the policy when issued in order to avail the insurer of a defense thereon."
Johnson v. Occidental Life Insurance Co. of California 361 So. 2d 1297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
620 , (1926), that the Supreme Court interpreted the applicable statute to mean that the application must be physically attached to or otherwise physically made part -of the policy to afford an insurer a defense predicated upon misrepresentations in the application.
Henderson v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. 347 So. 2d 53 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Spain v. Travelers Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 827 La. 1976
620 , (1926) we emphatically held that The Entire Contract Policy Statute must be construed literally so as to require actual physical attachment of the insured's application to the policy when issued in order to avail the insurer of a defense thereon.
Smith v. North American Co. for Life, Acc. & H. Ins. 306 So. 2d 751 La. 1975
620 , (1926) the Court said: "The purpose of the law is that the insured shall have in his possession during his lifetime, and that the beneficiary shall have after the death of the insured, the entire evidence of the contract.
Kelmell v. Atlas Life Insurance 107 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1958
620 , ; Rutherford v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins.
Mataya v. Delta Life Ins. 58 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
620 , ; Rutherford v. Acacia Mutual Life Ins.
Rutherford v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co. 181 So. 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1938
Parks v. Hall 181 So. 191 La. 1938
620 , ; May v. Yellow Cab Co., 164 La.
Johnson v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 169 So. 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
620 , , requires the interpretation that the word “issued” used in statutes of this kind should be interpreted to mean “reissued,” or “reinstated.” But we do not so read the Fisette Case, for there an insurer issued a policy of insurance which provided that the said policy should not be “established” until, within a fixed t
Broady v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co. 160 So. 653 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
620 , ; Dolan v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 158 So. 577 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1935
620 , , reaffirmed in Eddins v. National Life & Accident Insurance.
Eddins v. National Life Accident Ins. Co. 138 So. 430 La. 1931
Williams v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. 130 So. 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
620 , ; Palesi v. Mutual Life Ins.
Carroll v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 123 So. 638 La. 1929
620 , , it was held that the statute was applicable to-statements made in an application to “establish” or “place in force” a policy on which the first premium' was not paid within the time prescribed, as well as to statements made in the original application for insurance.
Bass v. Weber-King Mfg. Co. 123 So. 112 La. 1929
620 , ; May v. Yellow Cab Co., 164 La.
De Moss v. Police Jury of Bossier Parish 118 So. 700 La. 1928
620 , ; May v. Yellow Cab Co., 164 La.
Whitmeyer v. Liberty Industrial Life Insurance 8 La. App. 126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Shuff v. Life Casualty Ins. Co. 114 So. 637 La. 1927
620 , , it was held that the act of 1916 was applicable as well to statements made in an application to establish a policy, or to place it in force after a failure to pay the premium within the time required, as to statements made in the original application for insurance.
May v. Yellow Cab Co. 114 So. 836 La. 1927
Fisette v. Mutual Life Ins. 7 La. App. 226 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1927
Planters' Bank Trust Co. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 110 So. 883 La. 1926
O’NIELL, C. J. This is the suit referred to in the decision handed down to-day in the case of Marie S. Fisette v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York (No. 28170) .