iron-safe clause in Louisiana

1930In the case of Thompson v. State Assurance Co., reported in 160 La. page 690, 107 So. 489 , and the case of Stovall v. Sterling Fire Insurance Co., reported in 163 La. 284 , 111 So. 707 , it was held that a violation of the iron-safe clause did not affect the insurance on the building, furniture, and fixtures, although all were covered by one insurance policy.

1930In the case of Thompson v. State Assurance Co., reported in 160 La. page 690, 107 So. 489 , and the case of Stovall v. Sterling Fire Insurance Co., reported in 163 La. 284 , 111 So. 707 , it was held that a violation of the iron-safe clause did not affect the insurance on the building, furniture, and fixtures, although all were covered by one insurance policy.

1930In the case of Thompson v. State Assurance Co., reported in 160 La. page 690, 107 So. 489 , and the case of Stovall v. Sterling Fire Insurance Co., reported in 163 La. 284 , 111 So. 707 , it was held that a violation of the iron-safe clause did not affect the insurance on the building, furniture, and fixtures, although all were covered by one insurance policy.

1927And: “The failure to preserve the books and papers by putting them in an iron safe, or in some place removed from a dangerous proximity to the insured premises, was as much a flagrant and inexcusable violation of the iron-safe clause as was the failure to keep a set of books or other records of the business transacted, and • likewise vitiated the policy.” Thompson v. State Assurance Co., 160 La. 683 , 107 So. 489 .

1963Co., 177 La. 148 , 148 So. 10, 11 , 92 A.L.R. 368 (1933) Judge Overton cites previous decisions and1 summarizes the law: “ ‘The iron-safe clause must be complied with substantially to entitle the insured to recover.

1963Co., 177 La. 148 , 148 So. 10, 11 , 92 A.L.R. 368 (1933) Judge Overton cites previous decisions and1 summarizes the law: “ ‘The iron-safe clause must be complied with substantially to entitle the insured to recover.

1964In policies which insure stock as well as other property such as household items and fixtures, the loss is divisible and, excepting the stock, the loss can be paid where the stock is distinguishable; Stovall v. Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 163 La. 284 , 111 So. 707 [1927]; and Moore v. Louisiana Fire Insurance Company, 177 La. 645, 647 , 148 So. 904 [1933]. *386 Miss O'Neal testified that at the time the policies were written the agents representing the two insurance companies made an inspection of the contents insured and made no inquiry as to whether or not she possessed an iron safe

1964In policies which insure stock as well as other property such as household items and fixtures, the loss is divisible and, excepting the stock, the loss can be paid where the stock is distinguishable; Stovall v. Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 163 La. 284 , 111 So. 707 [1927]; and Moore v. Louisiana Fire Insurance Company, 177 La. 645, 647 , 148 So. 904 [1933]. *386 Miss O'Neal testified that at the time the policies were written the agents representing the two insurance companies made an inspection of the contents insured and made no inquiry as to whether or not she possessed an iron safe

1934As to the doctrine ,of substantial complL anee invoked by plaintiff in this case, it is said in Davis v. National Fire Insurance Co. et al., 169 La. 63 , 124 So. 147 , 149: “While it is held that a substantial compliance with the iron-safe clause'is sufficient, yet for the compliance to be substantial the records and books kept and, preserved must be such as to enable the insurer to ascertain, with reasonable certainty,, the amount of the goods on hand at the time of the fire, and to test with like certainty the correctness of the accounts delivered to it.

1934As to the doctrine ,of substantial complL anee invoked by plaintiff in this case, it is said in Davis v. National Fire Insurance Co. et al., 169 La. 63 , 124 So. 147 , 149: “While it is held that a substantial compliance with the iron-safe clause'is sufficient, yet for the compliance to be substantial the records and books kept and, preserved must be such as to enable the insurer to ascertain, with reasonable certainty,, the amount of the goods on hand at the time of the fire, and to test with like certainty the correctness of the accounts delivered to it.

1933Co., 156 La. 813 , 101 So. 152 . * * * ’’ Some effort was made by plaintiff to show that the insurer had knowledge that no inventory of the stock had been made and agreed that none need be made, and therefore had waived the covenant set out in the iron safe clause.

1933Co., 156 La. 813 , 101 So. 152 . * * * ’’ Some effort was made by plaintiff to show that the insurer had knowledge that no inventory of the stock had been made and agreed that none need be made, and therefore had waived the covenant set out in the iron safe clause.

1929Sup. No. 27530), 123 So. 295 . 1 While it is held that a substantial compliance with the iron-safe clause is sufficient, yet for the compliance to be substantial the records and books kept and preserved must be such as to enable the insurer to ascertain, with reasonable certainty, the amount of the goods on hand at the time of the fire, and to test with like certainty the correctness of the accounts delivered to it.

1929Boulanger v. British Underwriters, 141 La. 461 , 75 So. 207 ; Thompson v. State Assurance Company, 160 La. 683 , 107 So. 489 ; Stovall v. Sterling Fire Ins.

1929Boulanger v. British Underwriters, 141 La. 461 , 75 So. 207 ; Thompson v. State Assurance Company, 160 La. 683 , 107 So. 489 ; Stovall v. Sterling Fire Ins.

1926Co., 82 So. 586 , 145 La. 473 , citing Germier v. Springfield Fire Insurance Co., 33 So. 361 , 109 La. 341 ; St.

1926Co., 82 So. 586 , 145 La. 473 , citing Germier v. Springfield Fire Insurance Co., 33 So. 361 , 109 La. 341 ; St.

1926Co., 82 So. 586 , 145 La. 473 , citing Germier v. Springfield Fire Insurance Co., 33 So. 361 , 109 La. 341 ; St.

1926Co., 82 So. 586 , 145 La. 473 , citing Germier v. Springfield Fire Insurance Co., 33 So. 361 , 109 La. 341 ; St.