Sanders v. Universal Life Ins. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Sanders v. Universal Life Ins. Co.

164 So. 507

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedDecember 16, 1935

DocketNo. 16175.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 So. 507 (Sanders v. Universal Life Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sanders v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 164 So. 507 (La. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a beneficiary for $120 on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant, Universal Life Insurance Company.

Upon the trial of the case it appeared that the insured died as a result of one or more of the diseases mentioned in a policy provision limiting recovery to one-half the face value of the policy. Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $60. Subsequently, a motion for a new trial was filed wherein the judgfoent was complained of only in the respect that it failed to place costs upon plaintiff; such disposition of costs being claimed as proper because of ■an alleged tender made by defendant, concerning which, it was alleged, there was ample proof. The new trial was granted and the judgment amended as prayed for. Plaintiff has appealed.

We are of opinion that there was no proof of tender before suit was filed on the policy and that, consequently, the costs should be borne by defendant. We find no other error in the judgment appealed from.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is amended so as to impose costs upon the defendant and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.'

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

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

This is a suit by a beneficiary for $120 on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant, Universal Life Insurance Company.

Upon the trial of the case it appeared that the insured died as a result of one or more of the diseases mentioned in a policy provision limiting recovery to one-half the face value of the policy. Judgment was rendered in plaintiff’s favor for $60. Subsequently, a motion for a new trial was filed wherein the judgfoent was complained of only in the respect that it failed to place costs upon plaintiff; such disposition of costs being claimed as proper because of ■an alleged tender made by defendant, concerning which, it was alleged, there was ample proof. The new trial was granted and the judgment amended as prayed for. Plaintiff has appealed.

We are of opinion that there was no proof of tender before suit was filed on the policy and that, consequently, the costs should be borne by defendant. We find no other error in the judgment appealed from.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is amended so as to impose costs upon the defendant and, as thus amended, it is affirmed.

Amended and affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-universal-life-ins-co-lactapp-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack