Legal Opinion

Rose v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1933No. 23643PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBevis, J.

As plaintiff in error was plaintiff below, and defendant in error was defendant below, the parties will be herein designated as plaintiff and defendant respectively.

Two grounds of error were chiefly urged by the plaintiff, and in our view of the case only these two grounds need be consideréd. They are:(1) That the defendant, by its conduct after the receipt of notice of plaintiff’s disability, waived the re quirement of the petition that the insured give notice and proof of such disability during its continuance.(2) That the trial court misconstrued the language of the contract, and thereby…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Gottlieb v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1930

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Roth Steel Products, and Toledo Steel Tube Company, Cross-Appellants v. Sharon Steel Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  2. New England Mutual Life Insurance v. HurstCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1938
  3. Kaplysh v. TakieddineOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Pearlman v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. State ex rel. Rollins v. Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1988

20 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