Skip to main content
· 1/17/1898

Ritter v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of NY

Citations

  • 169 U.S. 139
  • 18 S. Ct. 300
  • 42 L. Ed. 693
  • 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1479

Syllabus

<p>This was an action on six policies of insurance, all alike (except as to the amount of insurance), and in the following form : “ In consideration of the application for this policy, which is hereby made a part of this cou- ■ tract, the Mutual Life Insuranpe Company of New York promises to pay at its home office in the city of New York, unto William M. Hunk, of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, his executors, administrators or assigns, twenty thousand dollars, upon acceptance of satisfactory proofs at its home office of the death of the said William M. Hunk during the continuance of this-policy, upon the following condition, and subject to the provisions, requirements and benefits . stated on the back of this policy,, which are hereby referred to and made part hereof. The annual premium of seven hundred and eighty-two dollars shall be paid in advance on the delivery of this policy, and thereafter to the company, at its home office in the city of New York, on the tenth day of November in every year during the continuance of this contract. In witness whereof,” etc. The principal defence was that the assured, when in sound mind, deliberately and intentionally took his own life, whereby the event insured against — his death — was precipitated. One of the issues was the sanity or insanity of the assured when he committed self-destruction. Held,</p> <p>(1) If the assured understood what he was doing, and the consequences of his act or acts, to himself as well as to others — in other . woTds, if he understood, as a man of sound mind would, the consequences to follow from his contemplated suicide, to himself, his character, his family and others, and was able to comprehend the wrongfulness of what he was about to do, as a sane man would, then he is to be regarded as sane;</p> <p>(2) In the case of fire insurance it is well settled that although a policy, ' in the usual form, indemnifying against loss by fire, may cover a loss attributable

Judges: Harlan, Peokham

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.