Legal Opinion · Dissent

Funk v. Ætna Life Ins.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 2, 1938No. 8658Published

1Dissent

“Burch, Justice

(dissenting).

“My interpretation of the provision of the policy is this: The amount to be paid in case of injury or sickness may be reduced in two ways:
“First, when the insured in. fact changes his occupation to one more hazardous. In that event the benefit in case of injury or sickness is ipso facto reduced' to the proportionate amount the premium would purchase according to classification of risk. That is fair and just and reasonable.
“Second, amount of benefit is reduced when the insured, without changing his occupation to a more hazardous one, engages in some activity…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gratz v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Rosenthal v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
  3. Levinton v. Ohio Farmers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  4. Sturgis National Bank v. Maryland Casualty Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Wilcox v. Massachusetts Protective Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

4 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