Legal Opinion
Kasarsky v. New York Life Insurance
City of New York Municipal Court
Decided November 29, 1932PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRussell, J.
Action heretofore tried by the court without a jury. Plaintiff seeks recovery under two policies of life insurance under the permanent disability clauses thereof. There are two clauses *733in each policy of similar wording involved. Such portion of each essential to a decision will be set forth: “ Permanent Disability.— Disability shall be presumed to be permanent, * * * (b) After the insured has been so totally disabled for not less than three consecutive months immediately preceding receipt of proof thereof.” “ No. 3. Benefit.— Upon receipt of the Company’s Home Office before default in the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Metzger v. . &198tna Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1920
- Quinlan v. Providence Washington InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Wheeler v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Solomon v. . Continental Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Lyford v. New England Mutual Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
- Peters v. Colonial Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Lydon v. New York Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
- Cochens v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Aufiero v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.