Adamos v. New York Life Insurance

293 U.S. 386, 55 S. Ct. 315, 79 L. Ed. 444, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 2
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 7, 1935
Docket452
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 293 U.S. 386 (Adamos v. New York Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States 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, 293 U.S. 386, 55 S. Ct. 315, 79 L. Ed. 444, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 2 (1935).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Hughes

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner brought this .action at law as beneficiary of several policies of insurance issued by respondent. The policies were alleged to have been issued in April, 1932, upon the life of petitioner’s father, who died in July, 1932. The policies were to be incontestable after two *387 years from date of issue. The action was brought in a state court in Pennsylvania and was removed to the federal court in February, 1933. Respondent’s affidavit of defense set up as new matter that the insured had made false answers and declarations in his application with respect to a surgical operation he had undergone and to the treatment he had received by physicians and at hospitals; that the insured knew that these answers and declarations were false; and that they had been made by the insured fraudulently with the intent of deceiving the defendant into issuing to him the policies of insurance in litigation, when the facts were such that if he had answered said questions truthfully and had made a full and honest disclosure, the defendant would not have issued any of said policies, but would have declined his application.” Respondent tendered judgment for the amount of the premiums received by it, with interest, and prayed that the policies be cancelled. Petitioner replied, denying the allegations of fraud.

Respondent asked that the equitable issue raised by its affidavit of defense should be heard under § 274b of the Judicial Code (28 U. S. C. 398) by a chancellor according to equity procedure in advance of the trial by jury at law of any purely legal issues.” The application was granted over petitioner’s objection, and the issue of fraud was tried in equity. The District Judge decided that it was a very plain case of fraud upon the insurance company,” that the insured had “ falsely answered the questions as to his medical history,” and that “ these questions were all as to matters of fact within his knowledge.” 5 F. Supp. 278, 280, 1019.

Decree was entered cancelling the policies and providing for the repayment of the premiums tendered. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 71 F. (2d) 997, and this Court granted certiorari.

*388 What we have said in Enelow v. New York Life Ins. Co., decided this day, ante, p. 379, is directly applicable here. The issue of fraud raised by respondent’s affidavit of de-. fense was fully available in the action at law and the court erred in directing the trial of that issue in equity.

The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with direction to vacate its decree and to proceed with the trial of the action at law.

Reversed.

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

Related

Gozan v. Mutual Life Insurance
77 Misc. 2d 249 (New York Supreme Court, 1974)
Ostrov v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
260 F. Supp. 152 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1966)
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. Hanley
140 F. Supp. 206 (W.D. Michigan, 1956)
Canning v. Star Publishing Co.
138 F. Supp. 843 (D. Delaware, 1956)
Occidental Life Ins. Co. of California v. Kielhorn
98 F. Supp. 288 (W.D. Michigan, 1951)
Logan v. Holman
7 F.R.D. 596 (D. New Jersey, 1947)
Fish v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
75 N.E.2d 57 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1947)
Garman v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
7 F.R.D. 473 (D. New Jersey, 1947)
Gates v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
56 F. Supp. 149 (E.D. New York, 1944)
Union Mut. Life Ins. v. Friedman
139 F.2d 542 (Second Circuit, 1944)
Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
137 F.2d 62 (Third Circuit, 1943)
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Same
134 F.2d 16 (D.C. Circuit, 1943)
Union Cent. Life Ins. v. Sobelson
46 F. Supp. 931 (E.D. New York, 1942)
Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
42 F. Supp. 488 (D. New Jersey, 1941)
Federal Life Ins. v. Ettman
120 F.2d 837 (Eighth Circuit, 1941)
Ross v. Service Lines, Inc.
31 F. Supp. 871 (E.D. Illinois, 1940)
Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Childs
7 S.E.2d 907 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1940)
Winer v. New York Life Insurance
190 So. 894 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1939)
Ruhlin v. New York Life Ins. Co.
93 F.2d 416 (Third Circuit, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
293 U.S. 386, 55 S. Ct. 315, 79 L. Ed. 444, 1935 U.S. LEXIS 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adamos-v-new-york-life-insurance-scotus-1935.