Legal Opinion
Leamy v. Berkshire Life Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 6, 1976PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Per curiam
We conclude that in this case the decedent misrepresented material facts relative to his health as a matter of law.
The uncontested proof established two misrepresentations, both in writing.
The first was in the original application for the life insurance policy for recovery on which this suit was brought. It was dated October 25, 1968. In it, decedent, a successful and well-educated professional man, who it cannot be denied understood what he was doing, while accurately disclosing two hospitalizations for relatively minor surgery in the early 1950’s, answered "no” to a question as to whether…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Geer v. Union Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Vander Veer v. Continental Casualty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1974
- Wageman v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1966
- Wageman v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
- Giuliani v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Hock v. New York Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- Process Plants Corp. v. Beneficial National Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- L. Smirlock Realty Corp. v. Title Guarantee Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1979
- Wittner v. IDS InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Friedman v. Prudential Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.