Attorney-General v. Guardian Mutual Life Insurance
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- People v. Commercial Alliance Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1897)
- Michel v. Southern Ins. (La. 1911)
- Hyde v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States (New York Supreme Court 1908)
- Lakowschowsky v. Utopia Land Co. (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1908)
- Langan v. American Legion of Honor (New York Supreme Court 1901)
- People v. Commercial Alliance Life Insurance (N.Y. 1897)
- Farley v. Union Mutual Life Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1887)
- Matter of Att'y-Gen'l v. . Contin'l L. Ins. Co. (N.Y. 1882)
- Attorney-General v. Continental Life Insurance (New York Supreme Court 1882)
- Attorney-General v. Continental Life Insurance (N.Y. 1882)
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
The respondents represent claims upon policies which were running at the date of the appointment of the receiver, and upon which premiums had been paid to some time subsequent to such date. The persons insured by such policies died subsequent to the appointment of the receiver not only, but subsequent also to the time to which premiums had been paid, and in the latter respect these claims differ from that upon the Lockwood policy in the case of People v. The Security Life Ins. & Ann. Co. (78 N. Y. 129). It is contended *339 that these claims are not within the principles laid down by us in that case, because of the difference mentioned. We think otherwise. These policies were in full force at the time when the insured persons died.
The further payments of premiums were excused by the failure of the company, as well as by the express notice of the receiver that he would receive no more premiums. For the purpose of enforcement the policies were just as effectual as if the premiums had been actually paid. These are not, properly speaking, death claims, but claims for damages upon policies running at the appointment of the receiver; and the rules laid down in the case cited furnish an accurate and just basis for the computation of such damages, the only difference between these claims and that upon the Lockwood policy being that here deductions from the sums which would otherwise be allowable should be made for the amounts of premiums unpaid at the time of the deaths. Such deductions were doubtless made, as no complaint has been made here that they were not.
The order should be affirmed, with costs of the receiver out of the fund.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.