Legal Opinion
Opara v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided April 23, 2004PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C.J.
Nearly one century ago, this court determined that the requirements currently contained in G. L. c. 175, §§ 131 and 132 (3) — which essentially prevent insurers from denying coverage based on alleged misrepresentations in an application for life insurance unless that application was attached to the *540policy when issued — do not apply to applications to reinstate a lapsed life insurance policy. Holden v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 188 Mass. 212 (1905). That same principle — in force and relied on by insurers for decades and unchanged by the Legislature despite years of consumer-oriented…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Reidy v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1923
- Holden v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1905
- Umans v. New York Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. BanerjiMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
- Karatihy v. Commonwealth Flats Development Corp.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
- Boehm v. Hanover InsuranceMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2009
- Clarke v. Mal Elfman's Furniture StoreMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 2005
- John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. BanerjiMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2004
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.