Killian v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The weight of authority seems to favor the proposition that the “ incontestable ” clause in a policy of insurance means that the insurer shall raise any question about the insurance, within the contestable period, by suit, or answer. There is nothing of that sort, necessarily, involved in the language employed, and that meaning should not be imported into it, contrary to the common-law and equitable rights of the insurer. This construction involves judicial legislation, or contractual creation. The language should be given its ordinary meaning, and not one which conflicts with rights or…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- American Trust Co. v. Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Fink v. . FinkNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Indiana National Life Insurance v. McGinnisIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Stiegler v. Eureka Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1925
- Ebner v. Ohio State Life InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1918
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Killian v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928