Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Co. v. Lewis
Kentucky Supreme Court
550 S.W.2d 558 (1977)
- Written by Anjali Bhat, JD
Facts
Edwin and Ida Lewis (defendants) had a daughter who disappeared. The Lewises brought suit against Alexander Hamilton Life Insurance Company of America (Hamilton) (plaintiff) for the face amount of two insurance policies on their daughter’s life. A judgment was entered in the Lewises’ favor and paid by Hamilton. Later, on July 25, 1971, the Lewises learned that their daughter was still alive. Hamilton moved to have the judgment set aside. Initially, Hamilton’s motion was denied. However, the denial was subsequently set aside, and Hamilton’s motion was granted. Hamilton also sought repayment of the money that had been paid to the Lewises. The Lewises had spent the money for paying off a note, for home improvements, for educating their son, on automobiles, and for the medical expenses and care of their returned daughter. The Lewises were left with significantly less in cash than the money received, but their net worth substantially exceeded the amount received. The trial court, after hearing evidence regarding the Lewises’ disposition of the money and their financial condition, entered a judgment of restitution directing them to repay half the money they had collected from Hamilton, without interest. Hamilton appealed, seeking the full amount of the money paid. The Lewises cross-appealed, arguing that an order of restitution would be inequitable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Palmore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
