Skip to main content
· 2/15/1904

Brignac v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins.

Citations

  • 112 La. 574
  • 36 So. 595
  • 66 L.R.A. 322
  • 1904 La. LEXIS 440

Syllabus

<p>INSURANCE — APPLICATION—WARRANTIES—REPRESENTATIONS — SUICIDE — FINDINGS OP COURT OP APPEAL — WRIT OP REVIEW.</p> <p>1. In an application for life insurance, a negative answer to the question, “Do you use spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors?” is not false when the answerer partakes of intoxicating liquors only occasionally and temperately.</p> <p>2. A clause in a life insurance policy reading, “If I die by my own hand or act, voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane,” is a mere ordinary suicide clause, and is not violated by an act done without suicidal intent.</p> <p>3. The pronounced leaning of our jurisprudence is against finding that there has been suicidal intent, where the facts will possibly admit of a different construction.</p> <p>4. This court is extremely reluctant to disturb,, on writ of review, the findings of fact of the-court of appeal.</p> <p>On Rehearing.</p> <p>5. The Supreme Court has authority to review conclusions of fact reached by the court of appeal, but -only does so in exceptional cases. State ex rel. Satcho v. Judge, 21 South. 690,. 49 La. Ann. 235.</p> <p>6. In reaching their conclusions as to whether a person has committed .suicide, courts are not tied down by the rigid rules of the criminal law. They are authorized to act upon circumstantial as well as direct evidence. The presumptions upon which they act should be weighty, precise, and consistent.</p> <p>7. The death of a person resulting from morphine administered by himself is in one sense death from his own hand, but it is not necessarily suicide. Kling v. Accident Association, 29 South. 332, 104 La. 766.</p> <p>8. The mere fact itself that an application for insurance may be annexed to and made part of the policy of insurance does not carry with it necessarily, as a consequence, that all the statements and declarations contained therein should be held to be “warranties,” though the failure so to annex the application and make it part of the policy would leave them to be dealt wit

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • finding violation of § 103.2(b)(16) and remanding for reconsideration on only that evidence in the record that was disclosed to the petitioner

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Decree, Land, Nicholls, Provosty

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.