Roth v. American International Life Assurance Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. American International Life Assurance Co.

163 A.D.2d 378, 559 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8846

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

DecidedJuly 9, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 163 A.D.2d 378 (Roth v. American International Life Assurance Co.) 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

Roth v. American International Life Assurance Co., 163 A.D.2d 378, 559 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated October 11, 1988, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant has offered evidence raising questions of fact concerning possible material misrepresentations regarding the [379]*379decedent’s medical history which were disclosed in his application for a life insurance policy (see, Berger v United States Life Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 440; Leamy v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 39 NY2d 271; Wittner v IDS Ins. Co., 96 AD2d 1053). Additionally, there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant would have insured the decedent had it known of his condition (see, Meagher v Executive Life Ins. Co., 148 AD2d 426; Di Pippo v Prudential Ins. Co., 88 AD2d 631; Wittner v IDS Ins. Co., supra). Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the proceeds of a life insurance policy, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated October 11, 1988, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant has offered evidence raising questions of fact concerning possible material misrepresentations regarding the [379]*379decedent’s medical history which were disclosed in his application for a life insurance policy (see, Berger v United States Life Ins. Co., 158 AD2d 440; Leamy v Berkshire Life Ins. Co., 39 NY2d 271; Wittner v IDS Ins. Co., 96 AD2d 1053). Additionally, there are questions of fact as to whether the defendant would have insured the decedent had it known of his condition (see, Meagher v Executive Life Ins. Co., 148 AD2d 426; Di Pippo v Prudential Ins. Co., 88 AD2d 631; Wittner v IDS Ins. Co., supra). Therefore, summary judgment was properly denied. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Kooper and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 378, 559 N.Y.S.2d 655, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-american-international-life-assurance-co-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack