Susan Karas v. United States

Third Circuit

Susan Karas v. United States

214 F.2d 130, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 30, 1954

Docket11295_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 214 F.2d 130 (Susan Karas v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Susan Karas v. United States, 214 F.2d 130, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665 (3d Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Two questions are presented by the instant appeal. The first is whether the Veterans’ Administration properly applied two premiums paid to it for the reinstatement of five year level premium term insurance. The second is whether the court below was correct in holding that the United States was not. estopped to assert the lapse in the insured's policy as a defense to the action. See D.C., 118 F.Supp. 446. The method of allocation of the premiums employed by the Veterans’ Administration represented a proper administrative construction. The.application of the premiums "clearly was in aeT cord with the pertinent provisions of the National Service Life, Insurance Act of 1940 as amended, 54 Stat. 1014, 38 U.S. C.A. § 801 et seq. Although', at' .the critical time, there was no regulation in effect as to the manner in which reinstatement premiums were to be allocated, the Veterans’ Administration Manual, M9-A, set out a proper method of allocation; viz., one premium for the prior grace month and one for the premium month of application.’ Clearly there was no estoppel.

The pertinent issues are discussed fully and adequately in the excellent opinion of Judge Murphy in the court below. No further discussion is required. We find no error in the decision of the court below. Its judgment will be affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Two questions are presented by the instant appeal. The first is whether the Veterans’ Administration properly applied two premiums paid to it for the reinstatement of five year level premium term insurance. The second is whether the court below was correct in holding that the United States was not. estopped to assert the lapse in the insured's policy as a defense to the action. See D.C., 118 F.Supp. 446. The method of allocation of the premiums employed by the Veterans’ Administration represented a proper administrative construction. The.application of the premiums "clearly was in aeT cord with the pertinent provisions of the National Service Life, Insurance Act of 1940 as amended, 54 Stat. 1014, 38 U.S. C.A. § 801 et seq. Although', at' .the critical time, there was no regulation in effect as to the manner in which reinstatement premiums were to be allocated, the Veterans’ Administration Manual, M9-A, set out a proper method of allocation; viz., one premium for the prior grace month and one for the premium month of application.’ Clearly there was no estoppel.

The pertinent issues are discussed fully and adequately in the excellent opinion of Judge Murphy in the court below. No further discussion is required. We find no error in the decision of the court below. Its judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 F.2d 130, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susan-karas-v-united-states-ca3-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack