Court Opinion

ID: 9696204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:41:01.661299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:19.588196
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
I would grant a new trial.
The insurance company defendant was solely responsible for the error, if any. The company acquitted its responsibility to the wife by paying the proceeds of the insurance policy to her, but the insurance company also has a responsibility to the named beneficiary. To escape its responsibility to the named beneficiary, the company should be required to proceed in equity by an action to reform the contract. In such an action the company would be required to assume the burden of going forward and the burden of proof, and it would *479also be required to produce a higher quality of evidence than it is required to produce to defend an action of assumpsit. By our action here, the road of the insurance company that seeks to resist the clear provisions of its policy of insurance is made much too easy, and the burden that we have placed upon the named beneficiary of a policy is much too heavy.