Legal Opinion

Goldstein v. New York Life Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 19, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFrankenthaler, J.

Plaintiff, the administrator of the assured, moves to strike out as insufficient in law each of the four defenses to the various causes of action pleaded in the complaint. The first defense alleges that the policies which are the basis of the suit were applied for pursuant to a conspiracy between the assured and the beneficiary, which had for its object the collection of the insurance from the defendant company through the assured’s disappearance under circumstances which would indicate that he had died; that in accordance with the conspiracy the assured attempted to simulate a drowning in…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Smith v. National Benefit SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Ampersand Hotel Co. v. . Home Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
  3. Murphy v. Colonial Life Ins. Co. of AmericaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. De Zoteel v. Mutual Life InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  2. Goldstein v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
  3. Swavely v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1931

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

Powered by the Exa API