Legal Opinion

Reidy v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided May 25, 1923PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBealey, J.

The trial court should have ruled as requested by the defendant, that the action could not be maintained.

The policy having lapsed for non-payment of overdue premiums, the insured signed certificates of insurability for reinstatement of the policy, the material part of which is of the following tenor, “ I being the person on whose life the within mentioned Policy was issued by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company . . . hereby request said Company to reinstate said policy which under its terms is now lapsed, upon condition of the truth of the following statements and agreements. Such…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Everson v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
  2. Cobb v. Covenant Mutual Benefit Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
  3. White v. Provident Savings Life Assurance SocietyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
  4. Fondi v. Boston Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
  5. Ballard v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Opara v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
  2. New York Life Insurance v. BuchbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Harris v. New York Life InsuranceCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1943
  4. Kukuruza v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
  5. Petty v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937

12 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