Stanulevich v. . St. Lawrence Life Association
Cases that cite this one
23 later published cases cite this decision.
- Globe Indemnity Co. v. Cohen (3d Cir. 1939)
- Kwiatkowski v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1926)
- Thomas v. New York Life Insurance (N.D. 1935)
- Bible v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (N.Y. 1931)
- Simon v. Government Employees Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1980)
- Hein v. Family Life Insurance (Wash. 1962)
- Russo v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Conn. 1939)
- Adamos v. New York Life Ins. Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1937)
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Lindquist (Neb. 1936)
- Anderson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (N.Y. 1934)
- Levic v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1934)
- Scott v. New England Mutual Life Insurance (Neb. 1934)
- Scott v. New England Mutual Life Insurance (Neb. 1934)
- Turner v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance (Idaho 1933)
- Pellon v. Connecticut General Life Insurance (Vt. 1933)
- Adamos v. New York Life Ins. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1933)
- Minsker v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance (N.Y. 1930)
- Metzger v. Ætna Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1930)
- Satz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance (N.Y. 1926)
- Satz v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance (City of New York Municipal Court 1925)
- Texas State Mut. Fire Ins. v. Richbourg (Tex. Comm'n App. 1924)
- Charlton v. Metropolitan Life Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1922)
- Gruberski v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen (Minn. 1921)
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
Upon the authority of Bollard v. N. Y. Life Insurance Co., decided January 27, 1920 (228 N. Y. 521), and Baumann v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co. (225 N. Y. 480), the application being a part of the policy, the insured and assured are bound by its terms, as it is part of the contract of insurance. The application in question was signed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff cannot maintain his present action and the judgment and order appealed' from should, therefore, be reversed, and the complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts.
His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Andrews and Elkus, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order reversed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.