Reidel v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reidel v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance

271 A.D.2d 838

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 838 (Reidel 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

Reidel v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance, 271 A.D.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a beneficiary, named in two life insurance ‘policies issued by appellant, to recover the amount of insurance therein provided to be paid, judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, in favor of the plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial ordered. Defendant established by competent proof on trial that the insured had received medical treatment within two years prior to the date of issue of the policies. Plaintiff’s evidence, offered to rebut this proof, was insufficient to show that the condition occasioning such treatment was not of a serious [839]*839nature, or was not material to the risk, or to raise an issue of fact as to the nature or materiality of such condition. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 928.]

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

In an action by a beneficiary, named in two life insurance ‘policies issued by appellant, to recover the amount of insurance therein provided to be paid, judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County, in favor of the plaintiff reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and a new trial ordered. Defendant established by competent proof on trial that the insured had received medical treatment within two years prior to the date of issue of the policies. Plaintiff’s evidence, offered to rebut this proof, was insufficient to show that the condition occasioning such treatment was not of a serious [839]*839nature, or was not material to the risk, or to raise an issue of fact as to the nature or materiality of such condition. Lewis, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 928.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reidel-v-john-hancock-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1946.