Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Conway
New York Court of Appeals
169 N.E. 642 (1930)
- Written by Noah Lewis, JD
Facts
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (MetLife) (plaintiff) sought to add a rider to its life-insurance policies. The rider would exclude coverage for deaths due to flying unless the insured was a fare-paying passenger, but if someone did die in an aircraft without being a fare-paying passenger, the beneficiary would receive the reserve, that is, recover part of what had been paid into the policy, but not full benefits under the policy. MetLife applied to the New York superintendent of insurance, Albert Conway, (defendant) for permission to add the rider, which he denied on the ground that it was inconsistent with insurance law § 101(2), which makes life-insurance policies incontestable after two years except if the insured does not pay the premium or for military-service-related reasons in times of war. The appellate division reviewed the refusal and reversed the superintendent’s decision, finding no conflict between the statute and the rider. Conway appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cardozo, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
