Reidy v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
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
- Everson v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Cobb v. Covenant Mutual Benefit Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- White v. Provident Savings Life Assurance SocietyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Fondi v. Boston Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Ballard v. Globe & Rutgers Fire InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Opara v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
- New York Life Insurance v. BuchbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Harris v. New York Life InsuranceCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1943
- Kukuruza v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Petty v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.