Legal Opinion

Knoche, Admr. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 2, 1934PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Where the right to change the beneficiary has been reserved in a life insurance policy, the beneficiary named has but a mere expectancy with no vested right or interest during the lifetime of the insured: Riley v. Wirth, 313 Pa. 362, 367; Irving Bank v. Alexander, 280 Pa. 466, 470; Weil v. Marquis,256 Pa. 608, 614; 37 C. J. 579, section 345. It has been held that a beneficiary who has but a mere expectancy cannot assign or transfer such expectancy during the life of the insured so as to preclude the latter's estate from claiming under the terms of the policy: Hicks v. Life Ins. Co., 166 Iowa…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Riley v. WirthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  2. De Zoteel v. Mutual Life InsuranceSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Entwistle v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  4. Irving Bank v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Weil v. MarquisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1917

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Henderson EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  2. Bayer's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  4. Matthews v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1944
  5. Storb AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1960

22 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