Legal Opinion
Faron v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided January 31, 1950No. 9711_1PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BIGGS, Chief Judge.
In this case we held, 176 F.2d 290, that New York law governed the rights of the parties under the insurance policy and ordered rehearing to the end that counsel might brief and argue the decisions. This has now been done and we shall dispose of the case on its merits.
The pertinent facts are set out in our earlier opinion and we will avoid repetition here as far as possible. The plaintiff, Faron’s widow, seeks to recover double indemnity from the defendant insurance company on a life insurance policy issued by it to Faron in 1937. The policy provided for the payment of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hartol Products Corp. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Faron v. Penn Mutual Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Gibbs v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Clapper v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1946
- Lee v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1944
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Howard v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCY. OF THE USMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- Howard v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1971
- in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle, Texas Court of Appeals, 12th District (Tyler)2015