Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Shuff v. Life Casualty Ins. Co., 114 So. 637.

24 citing documents.

Martin v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 367 So. 2d 420 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
Spain v. Travelers Insurance Company 332 So. 2d 827 La. 1976
Ducote v. Life Insurance Company of Louisiana 245 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
App. 2nd Cir., 1956); , 114 So.
Borer v. Security Industrial Life Insurance Co. 245 So. 2d 5 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
In Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, , 114 So.
Audubon Life Insurance Co. v. Lauzervich 242 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Aucoin v. First National Life Insurance 204 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Zimmerman v. United Benefit Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Quartararo v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co. 199 So. 2d 20 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Co. of Tennessee, , 114 So.
Meaux v. Southern Construction Corporation 159 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
Co. of Tennessee, , 114 So.
Lafleur v. All American Insurance Co. 157 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
Especially is this true where the policy is one issued without a medical examination.” Couch on Insurance 2d, Section 11:1 et seq.; also see Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co., , 114 So.
Broussard v. Fidelity Standard Life Insurance Co. 146 So. 2d 292 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
Defendant also cites Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co., , 114 So.
Matthews v. National Life & Accident Insurance 88 So. 2d 454 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
Co. of Tennessee, , 114 So.
James v. Bowen 69 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
n, from which it follows that, in view of the admission that no claim in writing was made as thus provided, the testimony offered to prove merely that delays occurred, upon which such claims might have been predicated, was irrelevant and should have been excluded on plaintiffs’ objection.” The foregoing case was cited with approval in Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee, 1927, , 114 So.
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
from asserting any right under the terms of this policy; nor shall the terms of this policy be waived or changed, except by endorsement issued to form a part hereof, signed by the President or Secretary of the Company.” In support of this contention the following is quoted from the decision of the Supreme *787 Court in the case of Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, 1927, , 114 So.
Succession of Dekan v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 172 So. 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1937
The case of Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Company, , 114 So.
McTague v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia 166 So. 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
McBride v. Acme Industrial Life Ins. Soc. 154 So. 741 La. 1934
Callan v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 147 So. 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
In Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, , 114 So.
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
Kinchen v. Royal Exchange Assurance 134 So. 340 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1931
ompany, as a corporation, being able to act only through officers and agents, their acts within the scope, ""or apparent scope, of their powers, a~e binding on it, that it may be estopped by their conduct and declarations and as such estoppel may be proved by parol, notwithstanding the requirements that a waiv’r shall be evidenced in writing.” Later, in Shuff v. Life & Casualty Insurance Co., , 114 So.
Williams v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. 130 So. 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930