Nebergall v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Appellate Court of Illinois

Nebergall v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

193 Ill. App. 189, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 617

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 9, 1915

DocketGen. No. 6,026

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 193 Ill. App. 189 (Nebergall v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nebergall v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 193 Ill. App. 189, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 617 (Ill. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

7. Insurance, § 379*—when acceptance of premiums after assured’s death revives forfeited policy. The acceptance hy an agent of the payment of premiums without knowledge of the death of the assured does not revive a previously forfeited policy, of life insurance. 8. Insurance, § 664*—sufficiency of evidence to show that insurer did not regard policy as forfeited. The fact that an agent of an insurer, without knowledge of the assured’s death, accepted and receipted for overdue premiums, tends to show that he did not regard the policy as then forfeited for previous nonpayments of premiums, although the amount of such payment was afterwards returned by the insurer. 9. Insurance, § 660*—when refusal of instruction as to burden of proof not prejudicial. The improper refusal of a requested instruction in an action on a policy of life insurance, as to the burden of proof to show that it was in force at the date of the assured’s death, held not reversible error in light of the instructions giyen.

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

7. Insurance, § 379*—when acceptance of premiums after assured’s death revives forfeited policy. The acceptance hy an agent of the payment of premiums without knowledge of the death of the assured does not revive a previously forfeited policy, of life insurance. 8. Insurance, § 664*—sufficiency of evidence to show that insurer did not regard policy as forfeited. The fact that an agent of an insurer, without knowledge of the assured’s death, accepted and receipted for overdue premiums, tends to show that he did not regard the policy as then forfeited for previous nonpayments of premiums, although the amount of such payment was afterwards returned by the insurer. 9. Insurance, § 660*—when refusal of instruction as to burden of proof not prejudicial. The improper refusal of a requested instruction in an action on a policy of life insurance, as to the burden of proof to show that it was in force at the date of the assured’s death, held not reversible error in light of the instructions giyen.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 Ill. App. 189, 1915 Ill. App. LEXIS 617, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nebergall-v-prudential-insurance-co-of-america-illappct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack