Mills v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.
Do the incontestable clauses in tbe policies in suit preclude the defendant from showing that plaintiff’s original claim for disability benefits was grounded on false and fraudulent statements, as alleged, and that a continuation of said claim — the gravamen of plaintiff’s present complaint — -does not fall within the terms of the supplemental agreements? This calls for an analysis and construction of the contracts.
With respect to the original policies, there are numerous decisions to the effect that an incontestable clause cuts off all defenses except those allowed eo nomine in the clause…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- National Bank v. Insurance Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1878
- American Trust Co. v. Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917
- Scarborough v. American National InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1916
- Jolley v. Jefferson Standard Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- Hardy v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- McDowell Motor Co. v. New York Underwriters InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Langan v. United States Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1939
- National Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. MixonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1973
- Underwood v. . Ins. Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- Allen v. National Accident & Health InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.