Legal Opinion

Goldman v. Girard Life Insurance

Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County

Decided February 29, 1956No. 4Published

1Opinion of the Court

Neely, J.,

This matter is before us on preliminary objections to plaintiffs’ amended complaint in assumpsit. The amended complaint avers that Henry P. Goldman, the insured, took out two insurance policies with defendant. It is averred that by change of beneficiary, his wife, Edith A. Goldman, was named beneficiary, and upon her death, or should she predecease the insured, his daughters, Ryea Peiser Goldman and Henrietta Goldman, were designated beneficiaries, and in certain contingencies the unborn children of his daughters were named as contingent beneficiaries; these beneficiaries having…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Entwistle v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
  2. Knoche, Admr. v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  3. Schuberth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
  4. PENNSYLVANIA CO., ETC. v. Commissioner of Internal Rev.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1935
  5. Snyder v. Home Life Insurance Co. of AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937

2 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