Legal Opinion
Bell v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n of Omaha
New York Supreme Court
Decided October 9, 1959PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJacob Mahkowitz, J.
This is a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s second canse of action under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice.
*755It appears from the complaint that plaintiff purchased a health and accident insurance policy from the defendant and had been receiving benefits thereunder due to disability. It is also alleged that defendant has informed plaintiff that it refuses to pay any further sums of money under" said policy. Plaintiff, therefore, has asserted a separate claim for damages as to the present value of the contract computed in accordance with the allegation concerning plaintiff’s life expectancy.
In…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. ViglasSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Killian v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- Kelly v. . Security Mutual Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1906
- Marciano v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1943
- Robbins v. Travelers InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
3Cited by4 opinions
- MaGee v. Paul Revere Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1997
- Romar v. AlliAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Scherer v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
- McCann v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1964