BROWN ET AL.
v.
NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial judge's analysis and conclusions regarding the life insurance policy lapse were correct, and certain exhibits were admissible.
Plaintiff sued on a life insurance policy where the defense was lapse due to non-payment of premium. The policy had been heavily borrowed against, sho…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extended Insurance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an action upon a life insurance policy issued by the defendant company. The defense was that the policy had lapsed for non-payment of premium. Since it had been heavily borrowed against by the insured the period of extended insurance was very short and had expired some time prior to his death.
The case is in federal court because of diversity of citizenship, the legal questions presented are controlled by New Jersey law. The various questions, and the New Jersey decisions relevant thereto, with one exception, are all analyzed and discussed by the District Judge. 59 F.Supp. 721. We agree with his analysis and the conclusions he reached. A further discussion by us would be only a restatement in our own words of points already satisfactorily discussed.
The one additional point relates to certain exhibits, marked D6 and D7 which the trial judge originally rejected but subsequently received. We think they were clearly admissible under the statute. 28 U.S.C.A. § 695. See Pollack v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 3 Cir., 138 F. 2d 123, 1943.
The judgment is affirmed.