Supreme Court of Ohio. The Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Sarah A. McMillen

1874 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 610
Keyword(s):  
1872 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-191
Author(s):  
M. Leon de Montluc

Never was a more complete change suddenly brought about in the laws of a nation by legislative enactment than that which has taken place this year in France in the law of life insurance, in consequence of one single decision of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Up to the present time the construction given to the contract of life insurance in this country has been quite different from what it is in England. As there is no provision of written law that relates to life insurance, it being not even so much as mentioned in the Civil or Commercial Codes, people thought themselves justified in governing it by laws and rules of their own. For instance, although it is a principle of law common to both English and French jurisprudence (we may add, to the law of all legislating nations from time immemorial) that choses in action shall necessarily devolve upon our legal representatives after our death, it has hitherto been decided almost universally by French tribunals that an exception was to be made in favour of life insurance policies. By the advocates of that doctrine, the right in the sum assured was thought never to have vested in the person effecting the policy, and the assurance monies were said to be transferred directly, i. e., omisso medio, from the assurer to the party entitled to receive the sum assured; and that sum, accordingly, would not be liable to succession duty.


1897 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheppard Homans

As the members of the Institute are doubtless aware, government in the United States differs in at least one important particular from that in Great Britain. In the former country all legislation must conform to the requirements of a written Constitution, and such conformity or non-conformity is decided in each case as it arises, without appeal, by a Supreme Court. In the latter country, on the contrary, the validity or otherwise of any Act of Parliament is decided by unwritten traditions and evolutions developed by the growth and experience of centuries. It is not my object or province to discuss the relative advantages and disadvantages of the two systems; I merely state the fact which must be clearly kept in view in order to understand the unique position of life insurance in the United States as regards governmental intervention.


1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 348-349

AbstractIn a judgment delivered by the Abu Dhabi Supreme Court of Cassation, in an action filed by the heirs of a deceased who was insured with a life insurance company, it was held that as the insured had failed to declare to the insurance company that he suffered from diabetes and high blood pressure (which was considered to be vital information which was withheld with bad faith), the insurance policy was null and void.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Aji Surya Pratama ◽  
Abdul Halim Barkatullah ◽  
Rahmida Erliyani

The aims of this research are to study and analyze the heirs whose names are not mentioned as beneficaries in life insurance policy who have been left by the deceased who can be categorized as heirs. Method of this research is normative legal research, and the type of the research vague norm, namely, there is difference or insyncronization of the Judges of the Supreme Court in making verdicts concerning disputes of fund claims of life insurance among the heirs.The results of the research shows that insurance agreement constitutes the result of combination between property law especially testametary inheritance law and contract law, thus, life insurance agreement can be called as testament because inheritance is one of the way to get right of ownership of a property, in this matter sum insured. Nomination of the heirs as beneficiaries of the fund of life insurance has a characteristic of administrative because the heirs are actually the heirs stipulated in life insurance policy. From the aspect of the inheritance property, the name stated as beneficiaries in life insurance policy can only receive maximum 1/3 (one third) of the inheritance property left by the deceased. From the aspect of their position, the heirs in life insurance policy are merely as creditors (not substituting the right and obligation of the pewaris). The legitimacy heirs are entitled to claim the right to absolute portion protected by law (legitime portie) upon the sum insured which is contrary to their legitame portion. 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document