Legal Opinion
Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 3, 1932PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
William S. Andrews, Official Referee.
The defendant is incorporated under the laws of New York as a mutual association to engage in the business of life insurance. It issues policies of, at least, three kinds — ordinary life, twenty payment life and endowment. The nature of ordinary life policies needs no explanation. Twenty payment life policies (the years may be more- or less) required the payment of premiums for the time fixed only if the insured survived so long. Upon his death, before or after, the policy matured. Endowment policies also required the payment of premiums for a fixed…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- New York Life Insurance v. StathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Lovell v. St. Louis Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Richard v. Credit SuisseNew York Court of Appeals · 1926
- People v. Security Life Insurance & Annuity Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Toplitz v. . BauerNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Pacific States Life Ins. Co. v. BryceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1933
- Bollenback v. Continental Casualty Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1966
- Stefanowicz Corp. v. HarrisCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1977
- Dougherty v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United StatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Goldberg Rudkowsky v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.