Elgutter v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

Citations

• 52 La. Ann. 1733

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. There is a privity oí interest between the insured and the one to whom h«> assigned the policy sufficient to enable them to join in a suit to have their rights recognized.</p> <p>2. When a corporation, by its action, leads a policy holder to believe that it will issue notices of the maturity of its premiums, it is without right to invoke a waiver made by the insured at the time he was insured to the prejudice of the one to whom he assigned the policy.</p> <p>3. This assignee had always received notice through the agency of persons connected with the company, and as to one of their agents, though no longer in the company’s employ, he continued to see that the assignee received notice. The evidence does not show that the assignee was aware that he, this agent, had been discharged. Held : That notice is the rule, and that the company will not be held relieved from the necessity of giving notice unless it clearly appears that it was jus tided in not doing so.</p> <p>4. With reference to time. The company had not been exact in computing it, and received premiums after maturity ; besides, thirty full days had not elapsed when the forfeiture was declared. Held : That assignee Is entitled to have his policy reinstated upon his payment of all the premiums due, immediately after the judgment of the court becomes final.</p>