Legal Opinion

Feierman v. Eureka Life Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 25, 1924No. Appeal, No. 110PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Kephart,

The policy of insurance on which suit was brought contained a clause, “This policy......shall be incontestable after two years from its date of issue except for nonpayment of premiums.” The insured died within-two years from its date of issue, but proof of death was filed thereafter. Defendant refused to pay the insurance on the ground that the insured had made material representations relative to his risk that were false. In answer to the interrogatory whether he had been refused insurance by another company, he replied he had not, when the fact was three or…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wright v. Mutual Benefit Life Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Ramsey v. Old Colony Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Hardy v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Central Trust Co. v. Fidelity Mutual Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
  5. Lawler v. Home Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Stiegler v. Eureka Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
  2. Ulakovic v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Franklin Life Insurance Company v. Mary E. Bieniek and Sewickley Savings & Loan AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1963
  4. Ludwinska v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. PrescottSupreme Court of Florida · 1937

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API