Legal Opinion
Loyal Protective Insurance v. Shoemaker
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided September 8, 1936No. 26406PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPhelps, J.
On September 26, 1917, Lem Shoemaker took out a mutual benefit accident policy with one of the defendant insurance companies, naming his son, the plaintiff, as beneficiary. The insured died from an accident on September /9, 1921. The plaintiff immediately telegraphed the insurance company, and received reply to this effect:
“We find that your father’s policy has not been in force since July 15, 1921. Your father allowed the policy to lapse on that date by failing to pay the premium due.”
The evidence reveals that the plaintiff, acting in reliance upon such representation, pressed the matter no…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brookshire v. BurkhartSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1929
- Waugh v. Guthrie Gas, Light, Fuel & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Davis & YoungSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Dusbabek v. BowersSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1934
- Liberty Nat. Bank of Weatherford v. LewisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Jarvis v. City of StillwaterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1987
- Morris v. WiseSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1955
- Masquat v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
- Omayaka v. OmayakaCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2011
- Reichert v. HornbeckCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2013
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.