Legal Opinion

Kelly v. New England Mut. Life Ins.

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided March 19, 1929No. 12638PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KIRKPATRICK, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s position in this case is that the words, “the holder of this policy,” and “the holder,” in the nonforfeiture provisions of the policy, mean the beneficiary, or, as she is called in this policy, the annuitant; that inasmuch as the nonforfeiture provisions give certain options in ease of default in the payment of premiums, if the right to such options were to be of any value, the beneficiary was entitled to receive notice of such default; and that, not having such notice, she is now, after the death of the insured, entitled to exercise the right of…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Chase National Bank v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Aetna Life Insurance v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  3. Hawkeye Commercial Men's Ass'n v. ChristyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
  4. Entwistle v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  5. Travelers' Insurance v. HealeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kelly v. New England Mut. Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1931
  2. United States v. CamiloCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  3. United States v. CruzCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API