St. Landry Wholesale Mercantile Co. v. Teutonia Ins.
Citations
- 113 La. 1053
- 37 So. 967
- 1905 La. LEXIS 809
Syllabus
<p>INSURANCE — PROOFS OF LOSS — WAIVER—FINDING OF FACT — PAROL EVIDENCE-INVENTORY.</p> <p>1.A denial of liability is a waiver of proofs of loss, and whether there was such a denial is a question of fact to be determined primarily by the trial judge, who sat without a jury. The judge found that the preponderance of the evidence showed such denial of liability by the adjuster of defendant on the alleged ground of a violation of the provisions of the “iron-safe clause,” relative to keeping the inventory of stock locked in a fireproof safe, etc. Such a finding of fact, where the evidence is conflicting, will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.</p> <p>2. Parol evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing waiver of proofs of loss, although the policy provides that all waivers of any of its conditions must be in writing.</p> <p>3. An adjuster may waive proofs of loss either directly, or by denial of liability, or refusal to pay on other grounds.</p> <p>4. A rough inventory, taken in pencil and on tablet paper, subject to revision and correction, and afterwards to be copied in ink in a bound book, according to custom, is not the “complete” inventory contemplated by the “iron-safe clause” to be kept in a fireproof safe or other place of security, especially when the assured was not in default as to the taking of the inventory, and the insurance company, could not have complained if no attempt whatever had been made to take an inventory before the fire.</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- stating that “[s]ubstantive due process has long encompassed racial discrimination” and finding that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that an attempt to end an immigration program violated substantive due process where it stemmed from “anti-Latino animus”
- denying a motion to dismiss APA and equal protection claims where the plaintiff had alleged that the termination of El Salvador’s TPS designation was motivated by race discrimination, based in part on statements of racial animus by the President
- “In the immigration context, a government’s classifications on the basis of nationality are sensibly reviewed deferentially, as nearly all immigration policies involve some degree of classification on the basis of nationality.”
- same for the TPS termination for El Salvador
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Land
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.