Mutual Savings Life Insurance Company v. Noah
Supreme Court of Alabama
1DissentJones, Justice
I must disagree with the majority holding that one has an insurable interest in the life of his brother (or sister) on the basis of their relationship alone. The public policy which provides the “insurable interest” requirement has its roots in two related, yet independent, principles. Absent insurable interest such contracts have been discredited for two reasons. One is that they are wagering contracts and the other is that they may be an inducement to homicide. It is not necessary that both reasons exist at the same time or to any given policy. While each might considerably influence the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Warnock v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Liberty National Life Insurance Company v. WeldonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1957
- Ruse v. . the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. FranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Young v. HippleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.