Legal Opinion

Cook v. Standard Life & Accident Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1890PublishedCited by 21 opinions

■ Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

On May 7, 1888, the defendant, a Michigan corporation, issued to the husband of plaintiff a policy *14of insurance for $5,000 upon a premium being paid of $25. A written application was filled out by the defendant’s agent at Muskegon, and was signed-by Bigelow T. Cook, the husband of plaintiff, the plaintiff being named as the beneficiary in the policy. The application contained the following clause:

“16. My habits of life are correct and temperate, and I understand and agree that the policy to be issued on this application will not cover any accidental injury which may happen to me either while…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Insurance Co. v. WilkinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Cleaver v. Traders' InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. The People v. . EastwoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  4. Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. HallMichigan Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Miller v. Phœnix InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1869

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Thornton v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Georgia · 1902
  2. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. HaleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
  3. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum v. BrashearsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1899
  4. Sullivan v. Mercantile Town Mut. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
  5. Traiser v. Commercial Travellers' Eastern Accident Ass'nMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909

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

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

Powered by the Exa API