The owner of El Paso Mexican Grill said Thursday he has no plans yet for his company, which recently bought the old chilli location. Cajun musician Joel Savoy traveled to perform at Chili's, one of the oldest Mexican restaurants in New Orleans. Pandemic-hit, this gave him the opportunity to participate in a project to reopen and reopen his old restaurant in the heart of downtown.
The visitation will take place Thursday from 5 to 8 p.m. at St. John the Baptist Church, 515 E. Main St., New Orleans. There will also be a memorial service on Friday at 6 p.m. in the church followed by a reception from 6.30 p.m. to 7.45 p.m.
A groundbreaking CD and DVD that tells the story of Cajun and Creole music in Louisiana and highlights some of its most popular and influential artists. The CD contains a booklet describing the history of the Acadian people of the region and describing what is happening in the music of what they now call "Cajuns." Each stop on this music tour should contain at least one song from one of their albums. For more information about the album and its contents, see "One Generation, Next.
In September 1894, the developer CC Duson auctioned 150 plots of land to establish the town of Eunice, named after his wife, the first mayor of New Orleans.
The defendant's company should issue an insurance certificate for the life of the plaintiff's son. On November 6, 1962, Miller called the plaintiff to his home and asked him what questions were on the form. Miller then made a form for a life insurance application and wrote down the answers to those forms before the plaintiff gave Miller the same answers he had given him. The plaintiff further testified that after filling out the application on November 6, 1961 and again on October 31, 1963, he asked him the above-mentioned questions and informed Miller comprehensively about his son's existing heart condition.
I believe the evidence shows that the plaintiff fully and correctly informed both the defendant's agent and Miller of the insured's existing heart condition prior to filing the claim. The defendant informed Miller of this condition while the applications were being processed. The plaintiff had previously fully informed his agent of his boy's heart disease and had given truthful and accurate answers about the health of the insured, while Miller filled out and reapplied for the insurance on October 31, 1963.
The plaintiff testified that he learned of his son's heart disease a few weeks after the birth of the child and that he had the disease in November 1962, when he made a formal application to the defendant for the above-mentioned insurance coverage. The defendant's agent, Miller, acknowledged that in October 1962, when he spoke to the plaintiff, the plaintiffs told him that his sons were born with a leaky heart, but that he could not remember whether the plaintiff had told him that the heart disease still existed. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff is presumably aware of the content of this application because he signed the application and attached a copy of it to a document.
In the case before the court, the plaintiff was aware that the defendant had written a wrong answer to the question contained in the application. The plaintiff testified that he did not know that this answer was written to any of the above questions because the defendants had refused his application for life insurance after his son's death.
The defendants argued that the answer was wrong, that it was a deliberate misstatement which materially affected the assumption of the risk of a risk assumed by the insurer, and that that false answer and false information damaged the insurance contract. It is also clear that insurers are not making any special defence, and that they are not showing any real intention of deception.
However, the defendants argued that the fact that a misrepresentation in the application constituted a material risk was irrelevant and that the defendant was entitled to an exemption from liability if the plaintiff had acted in good faith. I think the evidence clearly shows that the plaintiff answered the questions put to him by his defendants truthfully and correctly, that he was not accused of fraud, but that if he had acted "in good faith" he would have been legally entitled to release from custody. In these circumstances, I thought the court had correctly ruled that the defendant was entitled to avoid liability because the plaintiff had misrepresented facts that substantially impaired the risk. Questions 4, 5 and 7 of this motion, which referred to the boy's heart disease, were wrong because I believe that the nature of the heart disease insured was so serious that it significantly affected the risk assumed by the insurance company.