- 11 -
and, therefore, no ‘incidents of ownership’ within Int. Rev.
Code, � 2042.” Id. at 1062. Furthermore, because in these
circumstances the policy inured to the wife’s separate benefit
from the date of its issuance, the court additionally noted that
the wife’s separate interest was in no way affected by payment of
premiums from community funds. Id. at 1060-1061.
In reaching the specific holding just described, the Court
of Appeals also made the following broader statement:
in Louisiana a life insurance policy is a contract sui
generis, governed by rules peculiar to itself. It is
the outgrowth of judicial precedent and not of
legislation, and, as such, it is not governed by the
articles of the Louisiana Civil Code as to ownership of
the policy itself or as to ownership of the proceeds. *
* * [Id. at 1060.]
As support for this proposition, the court cited Sizeler v.
Sizeler, 127 So. 388 (La. 1930). Therein the Louisiana Supreme
Court, after observing that “a life insurance policy is a
contract sui generis, governed by rules peculiar to itself, the
outgrowth of judicial precedent and not of legislation”,
concluded that “the proceeds of life insurance policies form no
part of the estate of the deceased, and inure to the beneficiary
‘directly and by the sole terms of the policy itself’”. Id. at
388-389.
Since 1969, this Court has on several occasions followed the
decision in Catalano v. United States, 429 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir.
1969), in requiring an interpretation of Louisiana law under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011