Cotton States Life Ins. Co. v. Crozier
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
The provision of the policy set up in plea 2, notwithstanding it is in the form of a condition precedent to the operation of the contract of insurance, has been held by this court to be in legal effect a-warranty, and governed by the principles of law applicable to warranties. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Mandelbaum, 207 Ala. 234, 92 So. 440, 29 A. L. R. 649.
This plea was therefore defective in not averring that “the serious disease of the heart” imputed to the assured increased the risk of loss. Mandelbaum’s Case, supra; Sov. Camp, etc., v. Hutchinson, 214 Ala. 540, 108 So. 520.
The demurrer,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. MandelbaumSupreme Court of Alabama · 1922
- Sovereign Camp. W. O. W. v. HutchinsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
3Cited by20 opinions
- Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. HarmonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1934
- Independent Life Ins. Co. v. ButlerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1930
- New York Life Ins. Co. v. ZivitzSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
- Independent Life Ins. Co. v. SealeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. ReidSupreme Court of Alabama · 1963
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.