Legal Opinion
Ginsburg v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of California
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided July 6, 1933PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BONDY, District Judge.
Although the decisions are conflicting as to the proper measure of damages upon the breach of an executory contract of accident insurance, by the weight of authority the plaintiff in this action cannot recover an amount sufficiently large to give this court jurisdiction. See Roehm v. Horst, 178 U. S. 1, 18, 20 S. Ct. 780, 44 L. Ed. 953; Kitheart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (D. C.) F. Supp. 719; Parks v. Maryland Casualty Co. (D. C.) 59 F.(2d) 736; Woods v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 240 Ky. 398, 42 S. W.(2d) 499; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, 157…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Roehm v. HorstSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Elgin v. MarshallSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Vance v. W. A. Vandercook Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Ætna Life Insurance v. PhiferSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Wright v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New YorkCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1927
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. ViglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Kuhn v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1941
- Menssen v. Travelers Ins. Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1933
- Mobley v. New York Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1935