Case ID: la-app_4/html/0433-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LECHE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. -
    First Circuit
    PLANTERS BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. THE MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF N. Y.
    (June 5, 1926, Opinion and Decree)
    (June 26, 1926, Rehearing Refused)
    
      (Syllabus by the Editor.)
    
    1. Louisiana Digest — Insurance—Par. 167, 176.
    Under Act 227 of 1916 the provision that no statements not endorsed upon or attached to the policy when issued shall be used in defense of a claim cannot have effect where the policy was in the possession of the insured at the time that an application for reestablishing it was made and the examina,tion thereto had.
    2. Louisiana Digest — Insurance—Par. 80.
    Where one states in an application for insurance that he had not consulted a physician in the past five years, although he had been very sick and his physician had told him that unless he did something for himself he would die within a year, his statement to the insurance company is sufficient fraud to nullify the policy.
    Appeal from the Parish of St. Landry, Hon. B. H. Pavy, Judge.
    Action by Planters Bank & Trust Company against The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. There was judgment for plaintiff and defendant appealed.
    Judgment reversed.
    Dubuisson, Perrault and Burleigh, of Opelousas, attorneys for plaintiff, appellee.
    Sandoz and Sandoz, of Opelousas, attorneys for defendant, appellant.
   LECHE, J.

This suit is upon an insurance policy for one thousand dollars issued by defendant on the life of Pierre S. Fisette, under the same circumstances as a similar policy involved in the suit of Mrs. Marie S. Fisette against the same defendant. Fisette applied for insurance in the sum of two thousand dollars and two policies of one thousand dollars each, were issued, the- one involved in this case and the other in the case of Mrs. Fisette. The issues being the same in both cases, the suits were consolidated for trial and argument, and on appeal in this court they were again consolidated for argument.

Wherefore for the reasons adduced in the case of Mrs. Marie S. Fisette vs. The Mutual Life Ins. Co., of New York, this day decided by this court,

It is ordered that the judgment appealed from be avoided and reversed at the cost of plaintiff and appellee and that the premium paid by the insured and deposited by defendant in the registry of the lower eourt be recognized as belonging to plaintiff.