Legal Opinion
Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Strange
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided October 27, 1932No. 6 Div. 57PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtThomas, J.
The bill was promptly filed, and within the .time required, for rescission of a certificate of health and accident insurance on the ground that its issue was procured by vitiating fraud perpetrated by the insured.
The first trial was had on materially different pleadings and in the absence of the policy alleged to have been exhibited. The policy now before the court is to a contrary effect. and militates to a different result. Pacific Mut. Life Insurance Co. v. Strange, 223 Ala. 226, 135 So. 477.
The trial court appreciated this change in fhe pleading and did not follow the former decision, for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance v. KearneySupreme Court of the United States · 1901
- Continental Insurance v. ParkesSupreme Court of Alabama · 1904
- Western Assurance Co. v. StoddardSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. PropstSupreme Court of Alabama · 1929
- Hill Grocery Co. v. CarrollSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Central Mutual Insurance Co. v. RoyalSupreme Court of Alabama · 1959
- American Life Ins. Co. v. BuntynSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. BrunsonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1944
- All States Life Ins. Co. v. JaudonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1935
- Dudgeon v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.