Legal Opinion

Ransom v. Penn Mutual Life Insurance

California Supreme Court

Decided October 8, 1954No. S. F. 19016PublishedCited by 111 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.

The jury impliedly found that defendant refused to perform a contract in which it agreed with plaintiff’s deceased husband, Ralph W. Ransom, to insure his life. Defendant has appealed from the judgment against it, contending that no contract of insurance was in force at the time of Ransom’s death and that if any contract existed it was vitiated by fraud.

In September 1949 Ransom, who was 28 years old, was solicited for insurance by an agent of defendant. A doctor selected by defendant examined Ransom and found nothing wrong with his physical condition. Ransom made a written application for…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Gaunt v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1947
  2. Western & Southern Life Insurance v. ValeIndiana Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Stonsz v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  4. Maddox v. Life & Casualty InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1949
  5. Colorado Life Co. v. TeagueCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938

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

3Cited by111 opinions

  1. Collister v. Nationwide Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.California Supreme Court · 1962
  3. Sabella v. WislerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Allen v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
  5. Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955

106 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