Legal Opinion

Leshem v. CONTINENTAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 25, 1963PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

METZNER, District Judge.

The failure of the named beneficiary of an insurance policy, seeking recovery under the double indemnity provisions of said policy, to make timely demand for a jury trial has resulted in five motions presently before the court.

Florence Katz, the named beneficiary, originally brought suit against the defendant for double indemnity in the Supreme Court of the State of New York on February 6th, 1962. On March 26th, 1962 the action was removed to this court on the ground of diversity, as plaintiff was a citizen of New York and the defendant a citizen of Delaware. When…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Toucey v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. Richman Bros.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  3. Provident Savings Life Assurance Society v. FordSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  4. Sperry Rand Corporation v. Bernard J. RothleinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1961
  5. Oakley v. GoodnowSupreme Court of the United States · 1886

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Gentle v. Lamb-Weston, Inc.District Court, D. Maine · 1969
  2. Grassi v. Ciba-Geigy, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  3. Grassi v. Ciba-Geigy, Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  4. Heape v. SullivanDistrict Court, E.D. South Carolina · 1964
  5. BBSR, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2023

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

Powered by the Exa API