On the contrary, the statutory law specifically permits, and the jurisprudence consistently has approved of, such a provision, as so interpreted, which has been held to be not contrary to public policy. LSA-R.S. 22:213 (A)(2); Cantu v. Fenner, Beane Ungerleider, 181 La. 743, 160 So. 399; Thomas v. First Nat. Life, Health Accident Ins. Co., La. App., 157 So. 409; Williams v. Continental Life Ins. Co. of St. Louis, Mo., La. App., 149 So. 150; Clark v. Mutual Ben. H. A. Assoc., La. App., 146 So. 497; Richardson v. American Nat. Ins. Co., 18 La. App. 468, 137 So. 370; Sincer v. Latin-American Ins. Co., 122 So. 909. We find no merit in plaintiff's contention that the defendant is estopped from denying coverage because of the latter's prior course of conduct in accepting past-due installments.

"We granted certiorari primarily because it appeared that the Court of Appeal erred in awarding a judgment against plaintiff for all costs notwithstanding that he had sued in forma pauperis." In Williams v. Continental Life Insurance Co., La.App., 149 So. 150, 151, the Court said: "* * * This suit was filed under the statute (Act No. 156 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 260 of 1918), authorizing the filing and prosecution of suits in forma pauperis, and plaintiff therefore cannot be adjudged to pay the costs of court."

(Citing cases.) In Williams v. Continental Life Ins. Co. of St. Louis, Mo. (La.App.), 149 So. 150, decided on June 15, 1933 by still another district court of appeal of Louisiana, Standard Provision 3 of the policy there in question was identical with that in the instant case and it constituted the sole defense of the insurance company to the claim of the insured. In that case the court said at p. 150:

Such a stipulation is reasonable, and we find that similar ones have been judicially determined to be enforceable. See Taylor v. Latin-American Life Cas. Ins. Co., 152 La. 740, 94 So. 375; Williams v. Continental Life Ins. Co. (La.App.) 149 So. 150; Clark v. Mutual Ben. H. A. Assoc. (La.App.) 146 So. 497; Richardson v. Amer. Nat. Ins. Co., 18 La. App. 468, 137 So. 370; Sincer v. Latin Amer. Ins. Co. (La. App) 122 So. 909. Since there was no liability at all under the policy for disability resulting from injury sustained until one week after the past due premiums had been paid, it is unnecessary that we consider the other question involving the alleged compromise, nor that we consider the question of whether Act No. 310 of 1910 is applicable.