Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Schwenk was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a life insurance policy could be assigned to a third party. The plaintiff, Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, had issued a life insurance policy to the defendant, Schwenk. Schwenk then attempted to assign the policy to a third party, which the insurance company refused to recognize. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the policy could not be assigned to a third party, as the policy was a personal contract between the insurance company and Schwenk. The Court reasoned that the policy was a personal contract, and that the parties had not agreed to any assignment of the policy. The Court also noted that the policy was not a negotiable instrument, and thus could not be assigned to a third party. As a result, the Court held that the policy could not be assigned to a third party, and the insurance company was not obligated to recognize the assignment.

In Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Schwenk, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a life insurance policy issued by the plaintiff to the defendant's deceased husband had lapsed due to nonpayment of premiums. The majority opinion held that because there was no evidence that any notice of lapse or cancellation had been sent to the insured prior to his death, and since he died before such notice could be sent, it followed that the policy remained in full force and effect at his death. Justice Field dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that under New York law (wherein this case arose), if an insurer fails for more than sixty days after premium payment is due without sending written notification of lapse or cancellation then they are deemed as having waived their right to cancel; secondly, he asserted that even if New York law did not provide such protection against waiver in cases where no notice has been given prior to death - which would have allowed insurers greater leeway in cancelling policies - it should still be applied here as a matter of equity and fairness towards those who take out life insurance policies expecting them never become void through lack of timely action on behalf of insurers.