Radway v. United Benefit Life Insurance

1 A.D.2d 1003, 151 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5223
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 22, 1956·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order granting plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim and the judgment entered thereon, unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion denied. The incontestability clause is no bar to the counterclaim insofar as it seeks to reform, rather than to destroy, the policy. The allegations of defendant’s mistake in computing the premium chargeable for the insurance, coupled with allegations that plaintiff “ knew or should have known ” that the premium set forth in the policy was incorrect, create triable issues, if not as to mutual mistake, then certainly as to unilateral mistake on one side and fraud on the other. Concur — Peck, P. J., Breitel, Botein, Prank and Valente, JJ.

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

Radway v. United Benefit Life Insurance, 1 A.D.2d 1003, 151 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5223 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

1 A.D.2d 1003 (Radway v. United Benefit Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spear v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
112 A.D.2d 904 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York v. Simon
151 F. Supp. 408 (S.D. New York, 1957)