Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pearlstein v. New York Life Insurance

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 27, 1949Published

1DissentPecora, J.

In my opinion, the language of the policy here involved is such as to show clearly that, in order to support a claim in behalf of the insured for total disability benefits, due proof of such disability must be given to the insurer during the lifetime of the insured. .

The provisions of the policy respecting the giving of proof of total disability are as follows:

“ New York Life Insurance Company agrees to pay to the Insured -
“ A Monthly Income of Twenty-Five Dollars * * * upon receipt of due proof that the Insured is totally and presumably permanently disabled * * *.
“ Upon receipt at the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Yohalem v. Columbian National Life InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1930
  2. Kantor v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1935
  3. Kasarsky v. New York Life InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1932
  4. Hinkley v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. of PhiladelphiaDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 1941
  5. Mutchnick v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceCity of New York Municipal Court · 1935

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API