Legal Opinion · Dissent

Scott v. Federal Life Insurance

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 16, 1962No. Civ. 25199Published

1DissentAshburn, J.

I dissent. I discover here no basis for a *395holding of waiver or estoppel on the part of the insurance company.

So far as concerns irregular and late payment of premiums, it appears that the application for the policy authorizes the company to charge any unpaid premium as a loan against the policy and the policy itself says that if any premium be not paid within the period of grace the company will charge same against the policy as a loan provided the loan value specified on the fifth page of the policy is sufficient to cover such loan. When the company charged any delinquent premium against…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Estate of TeedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952
  2. Puckhaber v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1901
  3. Fewel & Dawes, Inc. v. PrattCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Reese v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  5. Sanders v. MacFarlane's CandiesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953

7 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