Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Bankson v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'n, 24 So. 2d 59.

17 citing documents.

Ryan v. Security Indus. Ins. Co. 386 So. 2d 939 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Health & Accident Ass'n, , ; Miller v. Preferred Life Insurance Co., La.App., 2 Cir., .
Negem v. National Central Life Insurance Co. 245 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Health & Accident Ass’n, , (1945), it was held the phrase “which confines the insured continuously within doors” did not mean the insured was prohibited from leaving his house in order to visit his physician or to engage in recommended exercise for therapeutic purposes.
West v. Lincoln Income Life Insurance 239 So. 2d 379 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Thus, , , we pointed out that there was testimony to the effect that the insured was ‘substantially’ confined within doors * 223 So.2d at 820 .
Distinguished Snyder v. Automobile Owners Safety Insurance 225 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., , .” The Bankson case is clearly distinguishable on the facts.
Manuel v. American Income Life Insurance 223 So. 2d 817 La. 1969
Thus, , , we pointed out that there was testimony to the effect *325 that the insured was “substantially” confined within doors, and we observed: “ * * * It was never the intention of the parties that the clause in controversy should be given an unreasonable or absurd construction * * *.
Manuel v. American Income Life Insurance Company 212 So. 2d 169 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1968
894 , (1941); Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, , (1945).
Knight v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. 205 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
855 , ; Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, , .
Morein v. American Physicians Insurance Company 192 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
Health & Accident Ass'n., , ; Miller v. Preferred Life Insurance Co., La.App.
Harmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company 170 So. 2d 646 La. 1965
Health & Accident Ass'n, , .
Harmon v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. 170 So. 2d 646 La. 1965
Health & Accident Ass’n, , .
Kennison v. US LETTER CARRIERS'MUTUAL BEN. ASS'N 132 So. 2d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
855 , ; Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, , .
Miller v. Preferred Life Insurance 107 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
758 , ; Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass’n, , ; Nomey v. Pacific Mutual Life Ins.
Cain v. Employers Casualty Company 96 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1957
758 , ; Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 1945, , ; Phelps v. Southern National Insurance Company La.App., 1955, .
Phelps v. Southern National Insurance Company 83 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1955
Health & Accident Ass'n, , , we quote: "When it did deny liability, it did so without an investigation of any kind to justify the merits, if any, of its position.
Catchot v. Delta Life Ins. 57 So. 2d 919 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Health & Accident Ass’n, , , as authority for the view that the terms of such a policy place upon the defendant the burden of establishing what plaintiff designates as a special defense, that the disease antedated the issuance of the policy.
Bologna v. New York Life Ins. Co. 40 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1949
Health Accident Ass'n, , ; Massachusetts Protective Ass'n, Inc., v. Ferguson, 168 La.
Picard v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York 31 So. 2d 783 La. 1946
As pointed out in the case of Bankson v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, , , while the insurance company is entitled to its hope that it will ultimately secure a judicial determination in its favor and the hope that the federal court would not follow the Louisiana law with respect to what constitutes total permanent disability but would follow the law as laid down by the fe