Lucille L. Goldheim, Administratrix With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Theodore D. Peyser, Deceased v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company

274 F.2d 752, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 94, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5561
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedJanuary 21, 1960
Docket15276
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 274 F.2d 752 (Lucille L. Goldheim, Administratrix With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Theodore D. Peyser, Deceased v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lucille L. Goldheim, Administratrix With the Will Annexed of the Estate of Theodore D. Peyser, Deceased v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, 274 F.2d 752, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 94, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5561 (D.C. Cir. 1960).

Opinion

BURGER, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court holding that certain life insurance policies had lapsed prior to the death of Theodore D. Peyser, the insured. We have considered the contentions of appellant administratrix 1 and find no error in the holding of the District Court that the policies had lapsed for non-payment of premiums before the death of the insured.

Appellant urges, apart from the nonpayment of premiums by the insured, that the insurer has an obligation to give notice to assignees of the insurance policies where the assignments have been accepted by the insurer. However, neither the insurance policy nor the assignment provides for notice to the assignees and the insurer did not otherwise undertake or agree to give notice to assignees of non-payment of premiums.

Absent a contract obligation arising out of either the policy or the assignment itself, and there being no statute which requires such notice, we hold that the insurer has no obligation to give notice to the assignees of non-payment of premiums, of intention to lapse, or of the laps *753 ing of the policy. In any event, there is serious doubt that appellant administratrix can be heard to complain of failure to fulfill an alleged duty owing by the insurer to the assignee.

Affirmed.

1

. The policies were for the benefit of the insured’s “executors, administrators or assigns.” They were in the possession of assignee-crefiitors, not parties to tliis appeal.

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

Related

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Pinellas Central Bank & Trust Company
175 So. 2d 245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
274 F.2d 752, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 94, 1960 U.S. App. LEXIS 5561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lucille-l-goldheim-administratrix-with-the-will-annexed-of-the-estate-of-cadc-1960.