James Clark McReynolds

“ Certain life companies undertake to make exceptions to the incontestability clause by words more precise than those now under consideration, and opinions in cases arising upon their policies must be appraised accordingly. ”

“ The matter is here by certiorari limited to the question of the application and effect of the incontestability clause.
No reason appears to doubt the power of the insurer to except from the ordinary incontestability clause all policy provisions relating to disability benefits. Chapter 28, Laws N.Y.1923 (Insurance Law (Consol.Laws, c. 28) , § 101) ; Steinberg v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 263 N.Y. 45, 188 N.E. 152, 90 A.L.R. 542. But the petitioner maintains that the words used in the policy before us are inadequate definitely to disclose a purpose so to do. And we think the point is well taken. ”

“ Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (C.C.A. Fourth Circuit) 70 F. (2d) 59, and Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Markowitz (C.C.A. Ninth Circuit) 78 F. (2d) 396, which presented for interpretation language identical with that now before us. The Circuit Court of Appeals followed its earlier opinion in N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Gatti, — F. (2d) — (Oct. 6, 1936) , [2] where the company employed different language. ”