Joe E. Freund, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America

370 F.2d 924
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 10, 1967
Docket23549
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 370 F.2d 924 (Joe E. Freund, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Joe E. Freund, Inc. v. Insurance Company of North America, 370 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1967).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal involves a suit on or a suit to reform an inland marine, so-called “All Risk”, policy of insurance containing a one-year time limitation of suit clause valid under Louisiana law. Finkelstein v. American Ins. Co., 1952, 222 La. 516, 62 So.2d 820. The accident occurred on November 2, 1962, when a barge carrying the Assured’s machinery and equipment in the tow of a contract carrier sank in the Yazoo River in Mississippi. Within two weeks, the Insurer, pursuant to a policy exclusion, declined liability for marine losses except when the property is in the custody of a common carrier. The Assured cargo owner nevertheless filed a written proof of loss with the Insurer and then pursued the cargo carrier, settling the libel on January 4,. 1965, for $100,000. The next day the Assured, after a lapse of more than two years, instituted suit against the Insurer asserting the theory of reformation, not a suit on the policy as such. The District Court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim under F.R.Civ.P. 12(b) because, in effect, the action was not brought within the time required in the policy either as originally expressed or as it would have been were it reformed.

We agree with the disposition of this case by the District Court. See Joe E. Freund, Inc. v. Insurance Co. of North America, W.D.La., 1966, 261 F.Supp. 131. Nothing in Fellman v. Royal Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 1911, 184 F. 577, compels a different result.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Walters v. Harvey Gulf International, Inc.
592 F. Supp. 6 (E.D. Louisiana, 1983)
Midco Louisiana Co. v. AQUATIC EQUIP. & ENG., INC.
423 So. 2d 10 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Stroud v. Northwestern Nat. Ins. Co.
360 So. 2d 528 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1978)
Browning v. City of Gadsden
359 So. 2d 361 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1978)
Grant v. Grant
326 So. 2d 758 (Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Cleveland Lumber Company v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.
397 F. Supp. 1088 (N.D. Georgia, 1975)
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
309 So. 2d 914 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1975)
Earl White v. Dr. Glen E. Padgett
475 F.2d 79 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
370 F.2d 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joe-e-freund-inc-v-insurance-company-of-north-america-ca5-1967.