Legal Opinion

Caruso v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 13, 1947PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Davidson, 0. C. J.

This case, ‘of novel impression, and involving no disputed questions of fact, was, by stipulation, tried by the court without a jury.

Plaintiff seeks to recover the face amount of a policy of insurance issued to Frank Caruso, his son, on June 18th, 1942, in which policy he was named as beneficiary. Insured, while serving as a soldier in the United States Army, was killed by enemy action on March 26th, 1945, in the Battle of the Bulge during an advance in Brey, Germany.

The policy contained a War and Aviation Kisk Exclusion Provision, the pertinent clauses of which read as…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Mutual Life Insurnace v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
  2. Harris v. American Casualty Co. of ReadingSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1912
  3. Kupfersmith v. Delaware InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1913
  4. Bullowa v. Thermoid Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1935
  5. Life Casualty Insurance Co. v. McLeodCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Boswell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1956
  2. Schneider v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1952
  3. Hayes v. Home Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1948
  4. Mancuso v. RothenbergNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1961
  5. Janco v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API