Metzinger v. Manhattan Life Insurance
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBurke, J.
Plaintiffs are the named beneficiaries of group insurance on the life of one Cholodenko.1 They appeal from a judgment denying recovery thereon and declaring the insurance contract null and void for fraudulent representations made in the application therefor. As will appear, we have concluded that the judgment should be reversed for failure of defendant to establish its compliance with a contract provision for furnishing a copy of the application to the beneficiaries or to the insured prior to the latter’s death.
Plaintiffs and Cholodenko were stockholders, officers and directors of the M & M…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. HollenderCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Culbertson v. CizekCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
- Dibble v. Reliance Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1915
- John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. DormanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
- Humphrey v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of AmericaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1967
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Nieto v. Blue Shield of California Life & Health InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Johnson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaTexas Supreme Court · 1975
- Amex Life Assurance Co. v. . Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
- Estate of Gorby v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1969
- Estate of GermondCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.