Case Name: Ada Bell Russell LACAZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TENNESSEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-05-13
Citations: 346 So. 2d 1280
Docket Number: No. 5976
Parties: Ada Bell Russell LACAZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TENNESSEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WATSON, FORET and HEARD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 346
Pages: 1280–1283

Head Matter:
Ada Bell Russell LACAZE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TENNESSEE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 5976.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 13, 1977.
Rehearing Denied June 24, 1977.
G. F. Thomas, Jr., of Thomas & Dunahoe, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellant.
Gahagan & Gahagan by R. E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, George M. Wear, Jr., Monroe, for defendant-appellee.
Before WATSON, FORET and HEARD, JJ.

Opinion:
HEARD, Judge.
This suit was instituted by Ada Bell La-caze to obtain one-half of all benefits received by her former husband, R. L. Lacaze under a group insurance disability policy provided by his employer, Tenneco, Inc. Made defendants are Tenneco, Inc., Tennessee Life Insurance Company and its successor, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company, and R. L. Lacaze.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment rejecting her demand.
The facts are undisputed and are succinctly set forth by the trial judge in his reasons for judgment:
"R. L. Lacaze was married to Ada Bell Russell in September, 1951. On August 1*3, 1975 Ada Bell Lacaze filed suit for a separation from bed and board, which was granted by judgment dated November 17, 1975.
During the existence of the marriage between R. L. Lacaze and Ada Bell Russell Lacaze, R. L. was employed by Ten-neco, Inc. In January 1965, R. L. became eligible to obtain, under a group policy, rights to disability benefits for specified losses, resulting from accidental bodily injury, sickness or disease. The original group policy, GP-785, was issued by Tennessee Life Insurance Company and later taken over by its legal successor, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company. From January 1965, through January 1969 R. L. Lacaze paid a portion of the premiums. Thereafter all premiums were paid by his employer.
On October 13, 1975, R. L. Lacaze applied for benefits under the disability provisions of the group policy. He alleged his sickness began August 1, 1975. On February 28, 1976, R. L. Lacaze began drawing benefits under such disability provisions.
The instant suit by Ada Bell Russell Lacaze alleges that R. L. Lacaze obtained rights under the group policy during the marriage, and therefore when he qualified for benefits thereunder, such belong to the community of acquets and gains that formerly existed between them. Accordingly, she is entitled to one-half (V2) of all disability benefits payable under said insurance policy to R. L. Lacaze."
Plaintiff-appellant assigns as error that the trial court committed error of law in failing to recognize the benefits payable by Philadelphia Life Insurance Company to R. L. Lacaze as a result of a disability which commenced during the marriage, under a policy of disability insurance purchased with community funds and furnished as an employment benefit during the existence of the community, was enjoyable by both spouses and the right of the wife to partici pate in the fruit of the policy was not destroyed by judicial separation or divorce.
As found by the trial judge, the policy is a form of health and accident insurance as provided for in LSA-R.S. 22:211, et seq., and has no cash surrender value. It was furnished R. L. Lacaze as an incident of his employment with Tenneco, Inc. Since January 1969 the premiums were paid by Ten-neco, Inc. LSA-R.S. 22:213(A-7) — Payment of Claims, states:
". . . All other indemnities will be paid to the insured. . .
Counsel for plaintiff-appellant in brief states that the closest case in point is T. L. James & Co., Inc. v. Montgomery, 332 So.2d 834 (La.1975).
We find that case inapposite to the present case for the reason that during the existence of the community R. L. Lacaze had no vested interest in the policy. His disability payments were made only after the community was dissolved.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs of the appeal are to be paid by plaintiff-appellant.
AFFIRMED.
WATSON, J., concurs and assigns written reasons.
FORET, J., concurs in result.