Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bologna v. New York Life Ins. Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided March 28, 1949No. 18531Published

1Dissent

It is my opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the $1,000 under the double indemnity provisions of the policy for two reasons: (1) that the exclusionary clause relied upon by the insurance company is too vague and ambiguous to be invoked, in that it does not with certainty and precision point out just what are to be considered acts incidental to war, and (2) that Bologna's death resulted not "directly or indirectly from war or any act incident thereto," but from an incident of a peril of navigation which is prevalent in times of peace as well as in times of war.

I concede that a…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Stankus v. New York Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  2. Eggena v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1945
  3. Railey v. United Life & Accident InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
  4. Savage v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of CanadaDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1944
  5. Vanderbilt v. . the Travelers Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1923

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