From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...
Mauroner v. Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company
Court of Appeal of Louisiana for the Fifth Circuit
520 So. 2d 451 (1988)
Susan Mauroner (plaintiff) and her husband, Milton Mauroner, Jr., purchased a life-insurance policy from Massachusetts Indemnity and Life Insurance Company (MILICO) (defendant) through MILICO’s agent, Steve Modica of Steve Modica and Associates (SMA) (defendant). The policy insured Mr. Mauroner’s life for $100,000 and Mrs. Mauroner’s life for $10,000. The Mauroners completed an insurance application and sent the application, one month’s premium, and a transmittal form describing the Mauroners’ desired coverage to MILICO. On November 20, 1981, MILICO notified SMA, through its associate, Bill Whittle and Associates, Inc., (Whittle) (defendant), that there was an error on the transmittal form. Whittle learned that MILICO required additional information. MILCO received this information a few days later. Subsequently, Whittle’s office followed up with MILICO about the Mauroners’ application. The Mauroners’ policy was issued on February 4, 1982. Although MILICO usually processed applications for issued insurance policies within 56 days of the application date, the Mauroners’ application was not issued until 92 days after the application date, which was a delay of 36 days. SMA delivered the policy to the Mauroners on February 28, 1982. SMA advised the Mauroners that the policy had a two-year suicide incontestability clause. On January 13, 1984, Mr. Mauroner committed suicide. MILICO refused to pay Mrs. Mauroner the proceeds of her husband’s life-insurance policy, because Mr. Mauroner died three weeks before the two-year suicide-exclusion period ended. Instead, MILICO refunded the premiums the Mauroners had paid. Mrs. Mauroner then sued SMA, Whittle, and MILICO (defendants). The trial court found in favor of Mrs. Mauroner for the full amount of the policy. The trial court determined that MILICO’s agents, Whittle and SMA, had negligently failed to timely correct the error in the Mauroners’ application. Thus, the issuance date for the Mauroners’ insurance policy was delayed. This delay caused Mr. Mauroner’s suicide to occur during the two-year suicide-exclusion period. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Chehardy, C.J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.