Legal Opinion · Dissent

Chambers v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 30, 1955No. Policy No. 942733; Policy No. 942734; Policy No. 956652; Policy No. 956653Published

1Dissent

McCurn, P. J. (dissenting).

In my view of it the attempted forfeiture was premature and therefore ineffective. The policy provides: ‘ ‘ Failure to repay a policy loan or premium loan, or to pay interest thereon, shall not avoid the policy unless the *109total indebtedness thereon including accrued interest shall equal or exceed the loan value at the time of such failure, nor until thirty-one days after notice has been mailed ” (emphasis supplied). The loan certificate provides: “ Second. That said loan shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum payable semi-annually on the first…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Roeser v. National Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
  2. New York Life Insurance Company v. ShivleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
  3. Walsh v. Aetna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
  4. Senin, Admr. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1943

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

Powered by the Exa API