Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Sussman, 42.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 42.,42. |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. SUSSMAN. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Court of Chancery.
Bill by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against Aaron P. Sussman. From a decree of dismissal, the complainant appeals.
Affirmed.
Perkins & Drewen, of Jersey City, for appellant.
Brenner & Kresch, of Bayonne (David Stoffer, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
The bill in this case was filed by the insurance company to compel the cancellation and surrender of a certain life and accident insurance policy issued by it to the respondent Aaron P. Sussman. The grounds upon which the cancellation was urged were that the policy was obtained upon fraudulent representations respecting other insurance made in the application for the policy; that no policy of accident insurance issued to the insured had been canceled, rescinded or renewal thereof refused; that no application for accident insurance had been declined, postponed or withdrawn, and finally that in answer to inquiry in said application the defendant had said that he was not at the time maimed, deformed or crippled in any manner or degree or affected with any form of bodily or mental disease, disorder, infirmity or impairment.
The case was heard by a Vice Chancellor on voluminous proofs produced by the parties and resulted in a decree of dismissal. From this decree the complainant below appeals to this court.
Under the allegations in the bill of complaint it was incumbent on the complainant to prove the misrepresentations in the answers given and that those answers were fraudulent in purpose. The learned Vice Chancellor reached the conclusion that this burden had not been met and advised the dismissal of the bill.
We think this conclusion was justified and the decree is accordingly affirmed.
For affirmance: The CHIEF JUSTICE, Justices TRENCHARD, PARKER, CAMPBELL, LLOYD, CASE, BODINE, DALY, and DONGES, and Judges VAN BUSKIRK, KAYS, DEAR, and KERNEY.
For reversal: Judge WELLS.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Stern
...that where the bill alleged conscious fraud complainant must prove conscious fraud or have his bill dismissed. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sussman, 109 N.J.Eq. 582, 158 A. 406; and second chancery opinion in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v." Lodzinski, 124 N.J.Eq. 328, 1 A.2d That ruling of ......
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.
...it is entitled to relief only in a legal forum. In support of this argument the defendant cites Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Sussman, 109 N. J. Eq. 582, 158 A. 406; Shapiro v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 110 N. J. Eq. 287, 159 A. 680, and section 94 of the Insurance Act (......
-
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Lodzinski
...fraud, it is equally true that it is also definitely established by the determination of the appellate court in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Sussman, 109 N.J.Eq. 582, 158 A. 406, that where a complainant insurance company, seeking to set aside a policy on the ground of misrepresentation, a......
-
Shapiro v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 51.
...as to the obligation resting upon appellant, under the issue framed, to prove moral or conscious fraud (Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Sussman, 109 N. J. Eq. 582, 158 A. 406) we have reached the conclusion that false representations, in the particulars indicated, were not made by the in......