Legal Opinion

Hilt v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 1896PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Muskegon; Russell, J. Assumpsit by. Lizzie Hilt against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on a policy of insurance. Erom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, C. J.

This is an action upon an insurance policy issued September 10, 1894, by the defendant company, upon the life of plaintiff’s husband, who died July 3, 1895. Plaintiff recovered. The company defended upon the ground that, at the time the policy was issued, the assured was not in sound health, but was ailing from a disease of the spine, which continued, and caused his death, and that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because of the proviso in the policy that “no obligation is assumed by this company prior to the date *518hereof, nor unless, on said date, the assured is alive and in sound…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Smith v. German InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  2. Beebe v. Ohio Farmers' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1892

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lord v. National Protective SocietyMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  2. New England Mutual Life Insurance v. LeVeyMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Schlee v. New Zealand Insurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API