Legal Opinion
McGinley v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided April 7, 1936PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The problem presented is one of the construction or meaning to be given to the words of a contract of insurance. This presents a question, not for the jury, but for the court. Hening, N. H. Dig. Tit. Contract, p. 284. And in answering this question an external standard is to be adopted, no presumption being indulged in for the benefit of either party. The question is, what would a. reasonable person in the position of the insured understand the words of the policy to mean? Duhaime v. Insurance Co., 86 N. H. 307, and cases cited. In other words, would the hypothetical reasonable man describe a…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- United States Mutual Accident Ass'n v. BarrySupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Horsfall v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1903
- Ogilvie v. Aetna Life Insurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1922
- Kendall v. Travelers' Protective Ass'nOregon Supreme Court · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Vermont Mutual Insurance v. MalcolmSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1986
- Linden Motor Freight Co., Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- Thiem v. ThomasSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Brown Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980
- Weil v. Federal Kemper Life Assurance Co.California Supreme Court · 1994
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.