Harris v. Security Life Insurance Co. of America
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) This policy is to be interpreted by tbe laws of Illinois. According to tbe decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, such a clause as that contained in tbe policy sued on, does not make tbe contract absolutely incontestable in cases where false and fraudulent answers are given by tbe insured in bis application.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Eon. Thomas J. Seehorn, Judge. (1) This policy is to be interpreted by tbe laws of Illinois. According to tbe decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, such a clause as that contained in tbe policy sued on, does not make tbe contract absolutely incontestable in cases where false and fraudulent answers are given by tbe insured in bis application. It is only where tbe incontestable stipulation gives to tbe insurer a period for investigation and ascertainment of tbe truth of tbe representations made in tbe application, sufficient to enable tbe company, by…
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION.
I
BOND, J.
insurance: Incontestability. (after stating the facts as above).— The modern rule is that a life insurance policy containing a provision that it shall be incontestable after a specified time, cannot be contested by the insurer on any ground not excepted in that provision. [Williams v. Ins. Co., 189 Mo. 70; Massachusetts Benefit Life Ass’n v. Robinson, 104 Gra. 256; Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 116 Gra. 799; Wright v. Ins. Co., 118 N. Y. 237; Patterson v. Ins. Co., 100 Wis. 118; Mutual Reserve Ass’n v. Austin, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1064; Murray v. Ins. Co., 22 R. I. 524; Clement v.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wright v. Mutual Benefit Life Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Clement v. Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1898
- Patterson v. Natural Premium Mutual Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1898
- Royal Circle v. AchterrathIllinois Supreme Court · 1903
- Williams v. St. Louis Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Topinka v. Minnesota Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Bennett v. Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1938
- Langan v. United States Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- Priest v. Kansas City Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Kansas · 1925
- Smith v. Ohio Millers Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.