Nesbitt v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

271 A.D.2d 862

This text of 271 A.D.2d 862 (Nesbitt v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nesbitt v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 271 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the facts and a new trial ■ granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event, unless the plaintiff shall, within ten days, stipulate to reduce the verdict to the sum of $1,815.15, with interest on the monthly benefits from the due date thereof, and interest on premiums paid from the date of each payment, in which event the judgment is modified accordingly, and, as so modified is, together with the order, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: While the jury had before it sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled as defined in the policy on January 3, 1943 (see Goldstein v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 273 N. Y. 578; Williams v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 245 App. Div. 585), and sufficient evidence to sustain a finding that on or about February 7, 1939, plaintiff filed due proof of total disability as required by the policy (see Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 266 N. Y. 345; McAndrews v. Prudential Ins. Co., 132 Neb. 332, Note, 109 A. L. R. 825), we think the finding implicit in the verdict that plaintiff was totally disabled prior to January 3, 1943, is against the weight of evidence. In this view, on this record, the plaintiff would not be entitled to recover more than the sum of $1,815.15, with interest on the monthly benefits from the due date thereof, and interest on premiums paid from the date of each payment. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action under a disability rider on a life insurance policy. The order denies defendant’s motion for a new trial.) Present — Taylor, P. J., Dowling, Harris, Larkin and Love, JJ.

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

Related

Wachtel v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
194 N.E. 850 (New York Court of Appeals, 1935)
Goldstein v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
7 N.E.2d 700 (New York Court of Appeals, 1937)
Williams v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
245 A.D. 585 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1935)
McAndrews v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
271 N.W. 857 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1937)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
271 A.D.2d 862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesbitt-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1946.