Legal Opinion

Demirjian v. New York Life Insurance

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided May 12, 1931PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFowler, J.

The defendant claims that it is entitled to judgment because as matter of law under the evidence the false statements (1) were made with intent to deceive and (2) increased the risk.(1) Two Wisconsin cases among others cited by defendant seem on their face to rule the case in its favor on the *73proposition that the false statements were made with intent to deceive. Monahan v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 192 Wis. 102, 212 N. W. 269, held that false statements of a school teacher that she was in good health, that the only illness she had had since childhood was tonsilitis, and that her weight had…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. McGowan v. Supreme Court of the Independent Order of ForestersWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
  2. McGinty v. Brotherhood of Railway TrainmenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  3. McKneely v. Brotherhood of American YeomenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Monahan v. Mutual Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Conklin v. New York Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Delaney v. Prudential Insurance Co. of AmericaWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  2. Bade v. Badger Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  3. Haas v. Integrity Mutual InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1958
  4. New York Life Ins. Co. v. BurrisMississippi Supreme Court · 1936
  5. Frozena v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

11 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