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

Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin

• 1886 • 120 U.S. 183 • Waite Court
In Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy was validly issued. The plaintiff, Phoenix Life Insurance Company, had issued a policy to the defendant, Raddin, in 1881. The policy was for a term of twenty years and provided for a payment of $2,000 upon Raddin's death. However, the policy contained a clause that stated that the policy would be void if Raddin failed to pay the premiums due. Raddin failed to...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 Waite Court
Term: 1886
Docket: 104
120 U.S. 183
7 S. Ct. 500
30 L. Ed. 644
1887 U.S. LEXIS 1959
Argued: Dec 20, 1886

Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a life insurance policy was validly issued. The plaintiff, Phoenix Life Insurance Company, had issued a policy to the defendant, Raddin, in 1881. The policy was for a term of twenty years and provided for a payment of $2,000 upon Raddin's death. However, the policy contained a clause that stated that the policy would be void if Raddin failed to pay the premiums due. Raddin failed to pay the premiums and the policy lapsed. The Supreme Court held that the policy was validly issued and that Raddin was liable for the premiums due. The Court reasoned that the policy was validly issued and that the clause requiring payment of premiums was a valid condition of the policy. The Court further held that the lapse of the policy did not invalidate the policy, but rather, it simply meant that the policy was no longer in effect. The Court concluded that Raddin was liable for the premiums due and that Phoenix Life Insurance Company was entitled to recover the amount due.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In Phoenix Life Insurance Company v. Raddin, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a life insurance policy could be assigned to another party without the consent of the insurer. The majority opinion held that such an assignment was invalid because it violated public policy and would lead to fraud and deception in insurance contracts. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that there were no legal or equitable grounds for denying assignments of policies when they are made in good faith by competent parties who have fully disclosed all material facts relating to them. He argued that allowing assignments would not only benefit those involved but also promote commerce as well as provide additional security for creditors who rely on these types of transactions. Furthermore, he noted that if insurers had any objections to particular assignments then they should reserve their right at the time of issuing a policy rather than attempting to deny valid ones after-the-fact.

Opinion written by Justice HGray
Decided: Jan 31, 1887
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