Legal Opinion

Smith v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 27, 1936No. Appeal, 137PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Me. Justice Maxey,

On November 28, 1928, defendant issued its policy of insurance for $5,000 on the life of Harry F. Smith. His wife, Jane T. Smith, the appellant, was named beneficiary. The policy contained a standard incontestability clause, and a provision for reinstatement, reading: “This policy may be reinstated at any time after default in premium payment, provided it has not been surrendered for its cash value, or its extension period expired, upon the production of evidence, satisfactory to the Company, of the insurability of the person whose life was insured and the payment…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Wright v. Mutual Benefit Life Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Teeter v. . United Life Ins. Assn.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
  3. McCormack v. Security Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
  4. Lantz v. Vermont L. Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
  5. Dunham v. . TownshendNew York Court of Appeals · 1890

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. New York Life Ins. Co. v. WatermanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1939
  2. Kanatas v. Home Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1936
  3. Hogan v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. CoCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1952
  4. Smith v. State Mut. L. A. Co. of WorcesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  5. Spencer v. Kemper Investors Life Insurance Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1988

3 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