Legal Opinion
Bundick v. National Life & Accident Insurance
District Court, W.D. Texas
Decided May 12, 1980No. MO-78-CA-44PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
SUTTLE, Senior District Judge.
Pending is the Defendant’s motion for a new trial. For the following reasons, the motion will be denied.
In order to prevail on a defense of material misrepresentation, an insurer must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the false representation was made willfully and with the intent to deceive or defraud the insurer or was made willfully and with the intention of inducing the insurer to issue the policy. See Southern Farm Bur. Life Ins. Co. v. Reed, 563 S.W.2d 634, 636 (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland 1978, writ…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company v. Rosa Lee Leaman RoosthCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
- Ben Rogers v. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant-Third Party v. Milton Bell and Mansard Homes Co., Inc., Third PartyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1979
- General American Life Ins. Co. v. MartinezCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1941
- Harrington v. Aetna Casualty and Surety CompanyCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1972
- Rosa Lee Roosth v. Lincoln National Life Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Enserch Corp. v. Shand Morahan & Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- En Serch Corporation v. Shand Morahan & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
- Bates v. Jackson National Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1996