Gam v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtSamuel E. Rosenberg, J.
Defendants move for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The action is based on a policy of life insurance. Defendant Bregman is not mentioned in the complaint. He is the agent who obtained the policy *725application and to whom it is claimed material information was orally vouchsafed thus negativing any material misrepresentation. Defendants claim the first premium was not paid while assured was in good health and there was material misrepresentation. There is no contest with respect to the availability of the defenses under the incontestability clause.
The policy was issued March 7, 1968.…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Minsker v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Axelroad v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Keck v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
- Arcese v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesNew York Supreme Court · 1961
3Cited by2 opinions
- Friedman v. Prudential Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Mutual Benefit Life Insurance v. LindenmanDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1995