Legal Opinion

Pisciotte v. Indemnity Co. of America

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided July 11, 1927No. 26405PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ST, PAUL, J.

Plaintiff sues for the value of his stolen automobile insured against theft by defendant. The defense is that he breached the following warranty clause of the policy, to wit:

“In consideration of a reduction in premium, it is warranted by the insured that the automobile insured under this policy will be continuously equipped with a locking device, known as ‘Sargeant lock.’ The insured undertakes during the currency of this policy, to use an diligence and care in maintaining the efficiency of said locking device and in locking the automobile when leaving it unattended.”

I

It is clear…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
  2. Winn v. StricklandSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1921
  3. Wall v. DudleySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1922
  4. Davitt v. Long-Bell Farm Land CorporationSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1926
  5. Grau v. Consolidated Dredging & Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1926

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Oliphant v. Louisiana Long Leaf Lumber Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  2. First Nat. Bank Bldg. Co. v. Dickson & DennySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1945
  3. Fuller v. MooreLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1932
  4. LeGuin v. MorrisLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1928
  5. McCormick v. Potomac InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1931

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API