Senin, Admr. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Kenworthey, J.,
The question is whether appellant had the right to compound interest on the policy loans. If it did not, the cash value would have carried the policies beyond the insured’s death on April 3, 1940 and they were prematurely cancelled.
It has been settled that, in the absence of a provision authorizing it in the policy and the loan agreement, an insurance company has no right to compound interest on policy loans. Murray v. Prudential Ins. Co., 144 Pa. Superior Ct. 178, 18 A. (2d) 820. The lower court held first that, whether or not the policy and agreement provided for.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Murray v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Poles v. State Mutual Benefit SocietySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Roeser v. National Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Hovey v. EdmisonSupreme Court Of The Territory Of Dakota · 1884
- Vaughn v. GrahamMissouri Court of Appeals · 1938
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance v. BlandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1945
- Jones v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1953
- Chambers v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955