Legal Opinion

Genrow v. Modern Woodmen of America

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1908No. Docket No. 141PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Error to Alpena; Emerick, J. Assumpsit by Ruth Genrow against the Modern Woodmen of America on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

In a suit by the beneficiary named in a certificate issued by defendant, it appeared that the application, which was made a part of the contract, contained questions, answers to which were warranted to be true, concluding with the following statement, signed by the applicant:

“I have verified each of the foregoing answers and statements from 1 to 36 inclusive, adopt them as my own, whether written by me or not, and declare and warrant that they are full, complete and literally true, and I agree that the exact literal truth of each shall be a condition precedent to any binding contract issued…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Finch v. Modern Woodmen of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. Jackson Bridge & Iron Co. v. Lancashire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  3. Johnson v. BallouMichigan Supreme Court · 1872

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. FreedmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  2. Tyler v. WeedMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. In Re Reed's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  4. Gorelick v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Kalamazoo Township v. Kalamazoo County ClerkMichigan Supreme Court · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API