Pentz

United States v. Pentz

Good Law
35 F.2d 350·1929 U.S. App. LEXIS 2970
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 21, 1929No. 5797California365 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

This action is brought on a war risk insurance poliey for $10,000, which had lapsed, upon the ground that on May 3, 1918, and on July 21, 1918, during the life of the policy, the appellee was so severely injured that he was permanently and totally disabled. The appellant alleged by answer that the original contract of war risk insurance lapsed on the 1st of October, 1919, apd that on ’the 6th day of April, 1921, plaintiff applied for reinstatement of his war risk insurance in the sum of *351 $5,000; that such policy was issued and subsequently lapsed. Appellant alleged that the rules of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance prohibited reinstatement in case the applicant was totally and permanently disabled. It is alleged that the applicant’s insurance was reinstated for $5,000, and that this new policy was allowed to lapse on October 1, 1923. The appellee replied, denying appellant’s allegation, but specifically admitting that he applied for reinstatement by reason of the misrepresentations of the doctors and officers of the United States Veterans’ Bureau. He alleges that he was ignorant of his rights under the original policy of war risk insurance. The sufficiency of the appellee’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.