McNally v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

49 A. 299, 199 Pa. 481, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 641
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 27, 1901·No. Appeal, No. 91·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We are not convinced that the Superior Court erred in reversing the judgment entered in the court of common pleas and in entering a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the suit. The provisions in the policy of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company differ materially from some of the provisions in the policies of the Prudential Insurance Company. It cannot fairly be said, therefore, that they are alike in their terms and conditions. In the policy in suit the present plaintiff was named as the beneficiary, and there is no sufficient cause shown for denying to her [484] the gift she was apparently entitled to receive. We therefore dismiss the assignments of error and affirm the judgment entered by the Superior Court.

Judgment affirmed.

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

McNally v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 49 A. 299, 199 Pa. 481, 1901 Pa. LEXIS 641 (Pa. 1901).

49 A. 299 (McNally v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Buckner
136 S.W.2d 1073 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
Beard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston
192 A. 411 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1937)
Orhowski, Admx. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.
189 A. 752 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Beard v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
186 A. 239 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Jordan's Mut. Aid Ass'n v. Edwards
166 So. 780 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Keene's Estate
70 A. 706 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1908)