Legal Opinion
Podzunas v. Prudential Insurance
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided June 26, 1939PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJennings, J.
The plaintiff claimed as assignee of certain industrial life insurance policies. The defendant administrator claimed as the beneficiary named in the policies. As such he attacked the validity of the assignment, denied that the plaintiff had been or could be substituted as beneficiary and claimed that he was at least entitled to the proceeds of a policy substituted for a lapsed policy before the assignment. He also claimed that the judgment of interpleader limited the issues.
The plaintiff’s appeal is confined to the propriety of the allowance of $200 made to the named defendant, hereinafter…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. SladeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Phoenix Ins. Co. v. CareySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Swift v. Railway Passenger & Freight Conductors' Mutual Aid & Benefit Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court · 1880
- Travelers Insurance v. MayoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- Thompson v. . Erie R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Town of Westport v. City of NorwalkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1974
- Loda v. H. K. Sargeant & Associates, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Driscoll v. Norwich Savings SocietySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1952
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Hartford National Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1959
- Hill v. BirminghamSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1944
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.