Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Co. v. Roma

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 21, 1935No. 13,462PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PLAINTIFF in error is hereinafter referred to as the company, defendant in error as Mrs. Roma, and her deceased husband, Joseph P. Roma, as Roma.

Roma carried a $2,000 life insurance policy in the company and thereto attached a double indemnity contract for the same amount in case of accidental death not "the result of violation of law by the insured." Some person, unknown, entered Roma's home and shot him. The company refused payment on the ground that Roma's death was not due to an accident but the result of his violation of law. Mrs. Roma, beneficiary, brought this suit to collect. To the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Burt v. Union Central Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1902
  2. Hatch v. Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
  3. DeMello v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
  4. Baker v. CouchSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
  5. Bowman v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Kansas · 1889

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Feiger, Collison & Killmer v. JonesSupreme Court of Colorado · 1996
  2. Pierce v. St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1JSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
  3. Bowman v. Preferred Risk Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
  4. Equitex, Inc. v. UngarColorado Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Potter v. SwinehartSupreme Court of Colorado · 1947

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API