Legal Opinion
Iverson v. Metropolitan Life Etc. Co.
California Supreme Court
Decided August 20, 1907No. L.A. No. 1902PublishedCited by 41 opinions
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtLorigan, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff as beneficiary to recover upon two policies of life insurance issued by defendant in favor of James E. Iverson, her husband.
The case was tried by the court, and from a judgment in favor of defendant plaintiff appeals, the appeal being presented on the judgment-roll.
The applications for both policies of insurance which were made and signed by the assured contained the following:—
“2. I have never had any of the following complaints or diseases: Apoplexy, asthma, bronchitis, . . . hemorrhage, insanity, . . . paralysis, pneumonia, rheumatism. ...”
”12. I agree…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- New York Life Insurance v. FletcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Westerfeld v. New York Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
- Clemans v. Supreme Assembly Royal Society of Good FellowsNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Dimick v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Thompson v. Occidental Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
- Raulet v. Northwestern Nat'l Ins. Co. of MilwaukeeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1910
- Utah Construction Co. v. Western Pacific Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1916
- Cohen v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1957
- Southern Casualty Co. v. HughesArizona Supreme Court · 1928
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.