Legal Opinion

Platke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1965PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGordon, J.

The underlying purpose of the legislature in enacting sec. 209.07, Stats., can be learned from declarations of the Iowa supreme court. This is true because our statute, adopted in 1911, was derived from the Iowa statute, enacted in 1897. In Weimer v. Economic Asso. (1899), 108 Iowa 451, 453, 79 N. W. 123, that court set out the purposes of the statute:

“The very evident purpose of the statute is to prevent the defeat of recovery on any policy where the company has, by its skilled agent, examined and passed upon the fitness of the applicant for insurance. The estoppel is directed to inquiry as…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Weimer v. Economic Life Ass'n of ClintonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1899
  2. Frozena v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Gibson v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Jespersen v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Ludwig v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1956

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Grosse v. Protective Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Alaska Bussell Electric Co. v. Vern Hickel Construction Co.Alaska Supreme Court · 1984
  3. Kelly v. Madison National Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Powalka v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Delaney v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

5 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