Hatch v. Mutual Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
38 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Davis v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Mass. 1976)
- Payne v. Louisiana Industrial Life Ins. Co. (La. Ct. App. 1948)
- DeMello v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (Mass. 1932)
- Molloy v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (Mass. 1951)
- Strachan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Mass. 1947)
- Strachan v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1946)
- Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Petril (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1942)
- Barboza v. Decas (Mass. 1942)
- Jacob v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1939)
- Millen v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (Mass. 1938)
- Wheeler v. O'Connell (Mass. 1937)
- Ranger v. Metropoliton Life Ins (Ohio Ct. App. 1937)
- Metropolitan Co. v. Roma (Colo. 1935)
- Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Roma (Colo. 1935)
- Domico v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Minn. 1934)
- Sontag v. Galer (Mass. 1932)
- Witt v. Spot Cash Insurance (Kan. 1929)
- Allen v. Diamond (7th Cir. 1926)
- Southern Ins. Co. v. Graham (Tenn. 1925)
- Slocum v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Mass. 1923)
- Townsend v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of America (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1919)
- Todd v. Traders & Mechanics Insurance (Mass. 1918)
- Mutual Life Insurance v. Guller (Ind. Ct. App. 1918)
- McDonald v. Mutual Life Insurance (Iowa 1916)
- Lundholm v. Mystic Workers of World (Ill. App. Ct. 1911)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It appears by the bill 'of exceptions, that the deceased voluntarily submitted herself to an illegal operation, with intent to cause an abortion, without any justifiable medical reason; that the operation performed upon her was dangerous to life, and known by her to be so; and that a miscarriage was effected by the operation, from the consequences of which sha died.
We are of opinion that no recovery can be had in this case, because the act on the part of the assured causing death was of such a character that public policy would preclude the defendant from insuring her against its consequences; for we can have no question that a contract to insure a woman against the risk of her dying under or in consequence of an illegal operation for abortion would be contrary to public policy, and could not be enforced in the courts, of this Commonwealth. See Amicable Society v. Bolland, 4 Bligh N. R. 194 ; Horn v. Anglo-Australian Assurance Co. 30 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 511 ; Moore v. Woolsey, 4 E. & B. 243.
It is therefore unnecessary to consider the questions raised upon the special clause of this policy, and so ably argued at the bar. ^Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.