Legal Opinion
Perkins v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided December 31, 1956No. 4523PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKenison, C. J.
The insurer’s first defense is that the application for the policy contained misrepresentations concerning the medical history of the insured. The evidence disclosed that the insured *385had been treated by physicians and therefore the negative answer to question 17 of the application was incorrect. While RSA 408:7 provides that the soliciting agent shall “be regarded as the agent of the company and not the agent of the assured,” as construed, it has proved to be inadequate and ineffective to accomplish its apparent objective. Boucouvalas v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 90 N. H. 175, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moulor v. American Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Lampke v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
3Cited by6 opinions
- Invest Almaz v. Temple-Inland Forest Products Corp.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2001
- American National Insurance v. HerreraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- Transportation Insurance Company v. Solomon DavidCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1963
- Hills v. Savings Bank Life InsuranceMassachusetts Superior Court · 2007
- Keyser v. Met. Life Ins. C o .District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.