Knauf v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 05 July 1930
• Docket Number: 3782
• Citation: 129 So. 404,14 La. App. 13
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: KNAUF v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

129 So. 404

14 La. App. 13

KNAUF v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 3782

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit

July 5, 1930

Appeal from Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides. Hon Levin L. Hooe, Judge.

Action by D. F. Knauf against Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

There was judgment for defendant, dismissing suit, and plaintiff appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Peterman Dear & Peterman, of Alexandria, attorneys for plaintiff appellant.

John C Hollingsworth, of New Orleans, and Hawthorn & Stafford and J. L. Pitts, Jr., of Alexandria, attorneys for defendant, appellee.

OPINION

WEBB, J.

Defendant, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, in consideration of a premium to be paid in installments, issued to plaintiff, D. F. Knauf, a fire insurance policy, covering certain buildings, etc., for the period beginning June 1, 1925, and ending June 1, 1930.

Some of the property was destroyed by fire on July 22, 1928, and the present action was instituted on the policy to recover for the loss.

The contract provided that:

"It is expressly agreed that this company shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may occur to the property herein mentioned while any installment of the installment note, given for premium upon this policy, remains past due and unpaid. * * * The company may collect, by suit or otherwise, any past due notes or installments thereof, and a receipt from the said Atlanta office of the company for the payment of past due notes or installments must be received by the assured, before there can be a revival of the policy, such revival to begin from the time of said payment, and in no case to carry the insurance beyond the end of the original term of this policy."

And plaintiff having alleged that the installment stipulated in the contract to be paid on June 1, 1928, had not been paid, defendant excepted that the petition failed to state a cause of action, and plaintiff appeals from a judgment sustaining the exception and dismissing his suit.

Appellant does not contend that the stipulation quoted was invalid, but that it was not self-operating, and that, in the absence of notice of suspension, the policy remained in full force and effect; and he urges that, as he alleged there was not any notice given of the suspension, the court erred in maintaining the exception of no cause of action.

And, in this connection, appellant further urges that the stipulation...