New York Life Insurance v. Hollender
California Supreme Court
1DissentCarter, J.
I dissent.
The decision reached here by the majority of this court is another instance where lip-service is paid to a salutary rule by recognizing its existence only to find that under the facts presented it has no application. The rule to which I refer is the old and just one—that a contract of insurance shall be construed most strictly against the insurer.
The incontestability clause in the policy under consideration here provided that “This Policy shall be incontestable after two years from its date of issue except for non-payment of premium and except as to the provisions and conditions…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Clement v. Insurance Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1898
- Humpston v. State Mutual Life Assur. Co. of WorcesterTennessee Supreme Court · 1923
- Mutual Life Ins. v. NewSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Arnold v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1915
- Lincoln Health & Accident Insurance v. JonesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.