McClelland v. Greenwich Insurance
Citations
- 107 La. 124
Syllabus
<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. It is not improper practice to join with the insured, as plaintiff in an action on a policy of assurance against fire, the party who is named in the policy as beneficiary thereof to the extent that his interest may appear.</p> <p>2. After the Insurance Company’s adjuster had visited the scene of the fire, had taken the measurements of the burned building, had suggested the employment of an architect to make estimate of the cost of replacing the structure, had possessed himself of the books and invoices of the insured, had gone over them carefully, had acquired information of all necessary facts and figures and then had made the insured an offer of a given sum in settlement of the loss, which was declined, the company is not in a position, when sued, to urge in defense that it is not shown any written notice of the fire, nor preliminary proofs of loss were delivered to it as the terms of the policy require.</p> <p>3. The fact that the tax collector had recovered a judgment against the insured, which had not been paid at the date of the insurance, and which operated as a lien on the property, and the fact that the land upon which the storehouse was located was still encumbered with the vendor’s privilege to secure part of the original purchase price, did not invalidate the contract of insurance in the absence of a showing by the defense that a particular statement of interest had been required of the insured, either by the terms of the policy, or otherwise, and he had made fraudulent concealment 01 misrepresentation of such interest.</p> <p>4. The fact that the insured owed debts, which operated as a lien or mortgage on the property, did not rake the property out of the category of the ■ “unconditional and sole ownership” requirement of the policy.</p> <p>5. The clause in the policy to the effect that “the entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed thereon or added thereto, shall be void if any change, other than by the death
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- rejecting attempt to exclude a chart identifying misstatements and omissions alleged in a securities fraud complaint because such information is “helpful to the Court” and not “argumentative in nature”
- deeming a claim not addressed in an opposition to a motion to dismiss waived
- deeming a claim not addressed in an opposition to a motion to dismiss waived
- deeming a claim not addressed in an opposition to a motion to dismiss waived
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Blanchard
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.