Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pierson v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 10, 1968No. Civ. 31146Published

1Dissent

*92HERNDON, J.

I dissent. In my opinion, the majority erroneously hold as a matter of law that respondent’s asserted acceptance of a check for $21.61 mailed by appellant on May 31, 1963, the last day of grace for the payment of the $41.61 quarterly premium due on May 1, 1963, operated as a waiver of respondent’s right to insist upon full payment of said premium within the grace period.

In my view, four basic errors underlie this mistaken holding : (1) failure to recognize that in this case, as in most eases, the question whether or not there was a waiver is a question of fact; (2) a misconception…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Crestline Mobile Homes Manufacturing Co. v. Pacific Finance Corp.California Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Sawyer v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
  3. Scott v. Federal Life InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
  4. Dittert v. FischerOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Huttlinger v. Far West Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1955

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API