John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. v. Luzio
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtJ ones, J.
There is no doubt that confusion exists in the reported cases of this state respecting the authority of insurance agents to waive conditions in life and fire insurance policies.
The contention of counsel for defendant in error, which was evidently sustained by the trial and appellate courts, is based upon the provisions of two Ohio statutes and their application to life insurance companies. The first is Section 9407, General Code, which provides that in any controversy between the beneficiary and the company the person who solicits an application for insurance shall be regarded as agent of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
- Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Myers v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1923
3Cited by29 opinions
- Youngblood v. Prud. Ins. Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
- New Jersey Life Insurance Company v. James A. Getz, Ruth Getz v. National Fidelity Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1980
- Neal Ayers v. Bernard Kidney and American Employers' Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1964
- Fay v. SwickerOhio Supreme Court · 1950
- Marcella M. Gettins v. United States Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1955
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.