Legal Opinion · Dissent

Selden v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 10, 1946No. Appeal, 65Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Jones:

In my opinion the averments of the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which must necessarily be taken as true in the procedural situation in which the judgment appealed from was entered, disclose a condition which was sufficient in law to excuse the beneficiary from her failure to file a proof of loss under the policy within the period prescribed therein, viz., ninety days from the date of the insured’s death. Although the ninety-day period had expired, the beneficiary had a reasonable time after her discovery of the existence of the policy (theretofore…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Walcofski v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  2. Girard Life Insurance, Annuity & Trust Co. v. Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1881
  3. Ad-Lee Co. v. MeyerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
  4. Paul v. PaulSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
  5. Telesky v. Fidelity Guaranty Fire Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

1 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