Adamos v. New York Life Insurance

Third Circuit

Adamos v. New York Life Insurance

94 F.2d 943, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4551

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedFebruary 4, 1938

DocketNo. 6486

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 F.2d 943 (Adamos v. New York Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adamos v. New York Life Insurance, 94 F.2d 943, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4551 (3d Cir. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the appellant, George A. Adamos, brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover on several policies of insurance on the life of Andy Adamos. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court gave the jury binding instructions to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the premiums paid. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal and the question involved is whether the judge erred in restricting recovery to a return of the premiums and, in effect, refusing to submit to the jury the alleged right to recover the amount of the policies. The basic defense of the insurance company was that the insured was guilty of fraud in the applications for the policies.

The opinion of the trial judge, 22 F. Supp. 162, on the motion for a new trial fully sets forth the facts and the applicable principles of law. By reference thereto we avoid needless repetition, and we find ourselves wholly in accord therewith. An additional opinion by this court would simply be an effort to put in different language what the trial judge has fittingly and fully done. So regarding, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment below on the judge’s opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the appellant, George A. Adamos, brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover on several policies of insurance on the life of Andy Adamos. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court gave the jury binding instructions to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the premiums paid. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal and the question involved is whether the judge erred in restricting recovery to a return of the premiums and, in effect, refusing to submit to the jury the alleged right to recover the amount of the policies. The basic defense of the insurance company was that the insured was guilty of fraud in the applications for the policies.

The opinion of the trial judge, 22 F. Supp. 162, on the motion for a new trial fully sets forth the facts and the applicable principles of law. By reference thereto we avoid needless repetition, and we find ourselves wholly in accord therewith. An additional opinion by this court would simply be an effort to put in different language what the trial judge has fittingly and fully done. So regarding, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment below on the judge’s opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 F.2d 943, 1938 U.S. App. LEXIS 4551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adamos-v-new-york-life-insurance-ca3-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack