Legal Opinion · Dissent

Inez L. Perkins v. Philadelphia Life Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Decided February 22, 1985No. 84-1451-WMPublished

1DissentMcMILLIAN, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. I agree that the critical question in this case is whether the life insurance policy was issued to Perkins or to TEC. The majority affirms the district court’s finding that the policy was issued to TEC, a Missouri citizen. I disagree and would hold that the policy was issued to Perkins, a Kansas resident, and that Mo.Rev.Stat. § 376.620 (1978) does not apply to the policy.

Section 376.620 applies to policies “issued ... to a citizen of this state.” Regulation No. 13.11, 4 C.S.R. 190-13.110, of the Missouri Division of Insurance, which implements the statute, requires…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
  2. Hofeld v. Nationwide Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1975
  3. Simpson v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  4. The Honorable Cliff Finch, Governor of the State of Mississippi v. Mississippi State Medical Association, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  5. Willie Rhynes v. Branick Manufacturing Corporation, an Applied Power Industry, Akron WeldcraftCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980

8 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