Skip to main content
· 10/7/1889

Home M. Life Ass'n v. Seager

Citations

  • 128 Pa. 533

Syllabus

<p>1. When a policy of life insurance is payable within ninety days after the furnishing of proof of death of the insured, the insuring company is not bound to delay payment for the full ninety days, in order to give possible adverse claimants of the money opportunity to make known their claims.</p> <p>2. In an action by the executrix of the insured upon a life policy, which, without notice of any adverse claim, has previously been paid by the insurer to an assignee having prima facie a regular title, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish that the policy is still a subsisting obligation, notwithstanding such payment.</p> <p>3. Whether in such action, the fact that the payment to the assignee was made upon the faith of a regular and formal assignment, in ignorance of any defect in his title and without notice that the money was claimed by the executrix, would be a good defence, if it had appeared in evidence that the assignee had no insurable interest, not decided.</p> <p>i: A letter to the secretary of the company, from the agent of the holder of the policy, urging prompt payment, and offering indemnity if the company should have trouble about it, but adding, “there is,- however, no danger in that respect,” has in it no element of notice of an adverse claim, and is inadmissible to affect the company with notice.</p> <p>5. If an insurance company give to the holder of a matured life policy, in settlement of the amount due thereon, its negotiable note for the amount, taking a receipt in full and a surrender of the policy for cancellation, in considering the effect of a notice of an adverse claim the giving of the note in such circumstances is to be treated as the equivalent of payment.</p>

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “to hold the employer liable only for the wages he has paid results in an injustice to the employee and seems contrary to the intent and the spirit of the [Act].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Green, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.