Legal Opinion

Hare v. Workingmen's Mutual Protective Ass'n

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1908No. Docket No. 63PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Bay; Collins, J. Assumpsit by Violet M. Hare, administratrix of the estate of Alonzo W. Young, deceased, against the Workingmen’s Mutual Protective Association on a policy of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff on a verdict directed by the court, and defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.

Plaintiff brought this suit to recover on an insurance policy issued to A. W. Young in his lifetime, insuring him “ by occupation working on punch in shipyard, in Class D, subject to all the conditions herein contained and indorsed hereon,” etc. Under the head of “Conditions,” the following provisions, among others, were indorsed on the policy:

“(7) Any illness contracted, or any injury received, fatal or otherwise, after a change of occupation to one classified by this association as more hazardous than that herein stated, or if injured while doing any act or thing pertaining to any…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Malicki v. Chicago Guaranty Fund Life SocietyMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  2. Cronin v. Fire Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lawrence v. Will Darrah & Associates, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. O'Neill v. Northern Assurance Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Peters v. SturmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Lessnau v. Catholic Order of ForestersMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Larsen v. General Casualty & Surety Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1928

1 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