Collister v. Nationwide Life Insurance

I emphatically dissent. Once again the Court, without justification in the facts of the case at hand, ignores the clear and unambiguous language of an insurance contract and dictates a result unsupported by the agreement of the parties.

In so doing the Court begins with a discourse concerning the evils perceived to be inherent in insurance contracts, particularly the practice common among life insurance com*600panies of accepting premium payments before the effective date of coverage (i. e., prior to completion of a required medical examination). Then, following a review of the “totality of the…