Legal Opinion
Seidman v. New York Life Insurance
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 25, 1937PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHofstadter, J.
It is clear from the evidence that the plaintiff was totally disabled within the terms of the policy at the time the application to reduce was made and acted upon, and that he was mistaken both as to the extent of his disability and as to the precise coverage of the policy.
These are mistakes of fact (Dominics v. United States Casualty Co., 132 App. Div. 553; Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 270 N. Y. 79.)
While the principles of law here involved are not always clearly delineated in the reported cases (Equitable Relief for Unilateral Mistake, 28 Columbia Law Review, 859, 885), it is well…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rosenblum v. Manufacturers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Dominicis v. United States Casualty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- In re the Estate of ClarkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Duncan v. New York Mutual InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
3Cited by12 opinions
- Witt v. WatkinsAlaska Supreme Court · 1978
- Barry v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Bloch v. Berkshire Ins. Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1991
- Benward v. Automobile Ins.District Court, S.D. New York · 1945
- Woodworth v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaNew York Supreme Court · 1939
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.