Legal Opinion

Hakum v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 10, 1935No. Appeal, 20PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Keller, P. J.,

As presented on the argument of this appeal, there is but a single question involved. As stated by the appellant, it is substantially as follows:

In a suit on a life insurance policy where performance by the insured of all things required of him under the policy is alleged, is the defense of fraudulent answers by the insured in the application for said policy, as to his attendance by physicians and treatment in a hospital, such new matter as will support a judgment for defendant for want of a sufficient reply thereto, under the provisions of sections 14, 15, 16 and 17…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Tamaqua Borough School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  2. Applebaum v. Empire State Life Assurance SocietySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
  3. Security T. & T. Co. v. Welsh & BrownSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
  4. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. KleinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  5. New York Life Insurance v. W. Bodek Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Battle, Admrx. v. Prud. Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  2. Potter v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  3. Tarasik v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County1942

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

Powered by the Exa API