Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Adamos v. New York Life Insurance

94 F.2d 943

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1938-02-04
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. In the court below the appellant, George A. Adamos, brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover on several policies of insurance on the life of Andy Adamos. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court gave the jury binding instructions to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the premiums paid. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal and the question involved is whether the judge erred in restricting recovery to a return of the premiums and, in effect, refusing to submit to the jury the alleged right to recover the amount of the policies.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Adamos v. New York Life Insurance. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 2 opinions

ADAMOS v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,94 F.2d 943(3rd Cir. 1938)

George A. ADAMOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 6486.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

February 4, 1938.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Frederic P. Schoonmaker, Judge.

Leonard M.S. Morris, of Pittsburgh, Pa., Arthur R. Rack, of McKeesport, Pa., and Sachs Caplan, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.

Wm. H. Eckert and Smith, Buchanan, Scott Ingersoll, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.

Before BUFFINGTON, THOMPSON, and BIGGS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In the court below the appellant, George A. Adamos, brought suit against the New York Life Insurance Company to recover on several policies of insurance on the life of Andy Adamos. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court gave the jury binding instructions to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the premiums paid. Thereupon plaintiff took this appeal and the question involved is whether the judge erred in restricting recovery to a return of the premiums and, in effect, refusing to submit to the jury the alleged right to recover the amount of the policies. The basic defense of the insurance company was that the insured was guilty of fraud in the applications for the policies.

The opinion of the trial judge,22 F. Supp. 162, on the motion for a new trial fully sets forth the facts and the applicable principles of law. By reference thereto we avoid needless repetition, and we find ourselves wholly in accord therewith. An additional opinion by this court would simply be an effort to put in different language what the trial judge has fittingly and fully done. So regarding, we limit ourselves to affirming the judgment below on the judge's opinion.