Goldstein v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
1Per curiam
The evidence shows that the insured was permanently and totally disabled as defined in the policies. It is, therefore, unnecessary to determine whether the definition formulated by the courts below accurately explained the language of the policies.
The judgments should be affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ., concur.
Judgments affirmed.
2Cited by11 opinions
- McGrail v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1944
- Carlson v. CarlsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
- Halper v. Ætna Life InsuranceCivil Court of the City of New York · 1964
- Cross Armored Carrier Corp. v. ValentineNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Marciano v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.