Insurance Co. of North America v. Lemon
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentJohn A. Fogleman, Justice
Assuming, without conceding, that the policy provision defining eligibility for insurance is ambiguous and subject to the construction given it in the majority opinion, I must dissent because I find merit in appellant’s second point for reversal. The policy clearly requires that the application be received by the insurance company, not the employer, before there was coverage. The application signed by Lemon was addressed to the insurance company. Colleen Krall was an employee of Morrison-Knudsen, not of appellant. Appellant neither received this application nor Lemon’s name as one covered…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Bastajian v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Estate of GoldbergCalifornia Supreme Court · 1938
- Carpenter v. Pacific Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Williams, Standridge & Deaton v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
- Magee v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.