From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vivenzio v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1938
254 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Frank v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 227 Wis. 613, 277 N.W. 643, 645 (1938), the insurer denied liability under an accident policy, claiming that its agent's acceptance of a renewal premium from the insured was not alone effective to renew the insurance contract in the absence of affirmative consent to renew on the part of the insurer.

Summary of this case from Consolidated Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Landers
See 2 Summaries

Opinion

May 27, 1938.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Taylor, JJ.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Appellate Division granted.

Summaries of

Vivenzio v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 1938
254 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

In Frank v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 227 Wis. 613, 277 N.W. 643, 645 (1938), the insurer denied liability under an accident policy, claiming that its agent's acceptance of a renewal premium from the insured was not alone effective to renew the insurance contract in the absence of affirmative consent to renew on the part of the insurer.

Summary of this case from Consolidated Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Landers

In Frank v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (1938), 227 Wis. 613, 277 N, W. 643, evidence of mailing was deemed insufficient because there was no testimony as to what happened to the notice after it was prepared for mailing. Here the Hartford's mailboy, White, testified that he put the notice in the envelope and delivered it to the clerk in the post office.

Summary of this case from Putman v. Deinhamer
Case details for

Vivenzio v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Case Details

Full title:FRANK VIVENZIO, Respondent, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 27, 1938

Citations

254 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Schroedel Corp. v. State Highway Comm

Respondent endeavored to prove the timeliness of the mailing by setting forth the practices and customs of…

Putman v. Deinhamer

We consider that the evidence was competent, it was believable, and it is sufficient, to support the jury's…

8 Citing Cases