Peters v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 3352.
Decision Date | 13 November 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 3352.,3352. |
Citation | 4 F. Supp. 928 |
Parties | PETERS v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Forest J. Mervine, of Stroudsburg, Pa., for plaintiff.
O'Malley, Hill, Harris & Harris, of Scranton, Pa., for defendant.
The question of law to be decided is raised on an affidavit of defense raising questions of law to plaintiff's statement of claim. The plaintiff brought his action of assumpsit to recover the sum of $304.20, a premium paid on October 18, 1930, on an insurance policy, No. 4069323, issued to the plaintiff on his life, October 18, 1928, and also to recover $100 per month from July 3, 1930, down to the time of trial, with interest; also the sum of $408.90, a premium paid on October 18, 1930, on an insurance policy, No. 4069324, issued to the plaintiff on his life October 18, 1928.
The plaintiff contends that on July 3, 1930, while at the age of thirty-four years, he became totally and permanently disabled by disease causing an impairment of his body so that since that date he has been continuously prevented thereby from following a gainful occupation and that by section 3 of policy No. 4069323, which provides, The plaintiff is entitled to recover $100 per month from October 18, 1930, to the time of trial, and the premium of $304.20, which he paid October 18, 1930, after he became totally and permanently disabled by disease on July 3, 1930. The plaintiff contends that by the provisions of section 3 of policy No. 4069324, which provides, "If, before attaining the age of sixty years and while no premium on this policy is in default, the Insured shall furnish to the company due proof that he is totally and permanently disabled, as defined above, the company will waive payment of each premium as it thereafter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Smith
...N.Y., 143 Misc. 587, 257 N.Y.S. 772, 773; Berry v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 165 Miss. 405, 142 So. 445, 145 So. 887; Peters v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (D.C.) 4 F. Supp. 928; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489, 52 S. Ct. 230, 231, 76 L. Ed. In the Epstein Case, the complaint......