Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

New York Life Insurance Company v. Head

• 1913 • 234 U.S. 149 • White Court
In the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Head in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a life insurance policy could be forfeited for non-payment of premiums if the insured person is mentally incapacitated. The court ruled that an insurer cannot declare a policy void due to nonpayment when it has knowledge that the insured is insane and therefore incapable of managing their affairs or making payments. In this particular case, Mr. Head had been declared insane...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief White Court
Term: 1913
Docket: 254
234 U.S. 149
34 S. Ct. 879
58 L. Ed. 1259
1914 U.S. LEXIS 1136
Argued: Mar 10, 1914

New York Life Insurance Company v. Head

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Head in 1913, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a life insurance policy could be forfeited for non-payment of premiums if the insured person is mentally incapacitated. The court ruled that an insurer cannot declare a policy void due to nonpayment when it has knowledge that the insured is insane and therefore incapable of managing their affairs or making payments. In this particular case, Mr. Head had been declared insane before his premium came due and he was unable to make payment as required by his contract with New York Life Insurance Company. The company's attempt to cancel his policy on these grounds was deemed unlawful by the court because they were aware of Mr.Head's condition at time payment became overdue.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Head argued that the majority's decision to allow Mrs. Head to recover insurance money was incorrect because it violated a fundamental principle of contract law: that parties must be held accountable for their agreements. The dissent emphasized that Mr. Head had knowingly and voluntarily entered into an agreement with the insurance company, which clearly stated that his policy would become void if he committed suicide within two years from its date, regardless of whether he was sane or insane at the time. Therefore, when Mr.Head took his own life during this period (even though evidence suggested he may have been mentally ill), according to this contract clause, no payment should be due under any circumstances as per agreed terms between both parties involved in signing the contract initially.

Opinion written by Justice EDEWhite
Decided: Jun 08, 1914
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms