About Me

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon
Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. cheap car insurance in waco texas , 145 U.S. 285, is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that made one of the biggest rules of evidence in American and British courts: an exception to the general hearsay rule for opinions concerning the declarant's intentions.

That rule allows law-abiding citizens to testify about statements they may have heard or read concerning specific issues, unless the statements involve matters that are private and privileged. In this case, Hillmon argues that the evidence was prejudiced against him because the statements the company's attorney presented at trial undermined his case's central claim: that Hillmon was acting in accordance with his personal wishes when he sold his company. The Court, however, declined to reconsider its prior decision, thereby affirming the jury's verdict. The ruling in Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, therefore, stands as the ultimate arbiter of whether or not an insurance company's insured can use hearsay evidence to prove wrongful foreclosure.

The crux of Hillmon's argument rests on the idea that in light of recent developments in the science of perception, he should be permitted to argue that he reasonably believed, within the reasonable scope of his knowledge at the time, that the statement he made to sell his business would have a beneficial effect on his business. That is, the evidence shows that he reasonably believed that if his statements were used against him, it would harm his reputation or remove from him opportunities in his future. But even if that premise is correct, it does not establish that the statement's information was true. Rather, it proves only that the information was not made more available to Hillmon than it would have been otherwise.

In recent years, courts have been more willing to look beyond mere suspicion to assist a jury to make its decision. The Science and Technology for Risk Management Act (STMJM) have made it easier for courts to apply "reasonable suspicion" to determine whether a risk should be re-examined after it has been found to be inaccurate or misleading. But the STMJM does not change the fundamental nature of hearsay evidence: Whether a statement is false or not should rest solely on the truth of the matter rather than on the emotions, prejudices, whims or feelings of a particular person. The idea that one person's word is worth a great deal more than another's cannot be reconciled with the modern world. And as how much is sr22 insurance in california have to weigh the value of testimony against that of mere suspicion, it has become increasingly common for juries in the United States and elsewhere to rely upon expert scientific testimony in cases involving life insurance and other areas of civil liability.

The mutuality principle involved in this example of liability law illustrates the point of the perils of relying on "hits" or" evidences" of a kind that are not subject to any evidentiary standard. If there were no such standard, life insurance companies could easily make up fraudulent claims in an effort to make a profit. And because no specific standard can properly identify fraudulent or questionable evidence, juries would regularly be presented with a confusing array of testimony that either did not occur or did so in a way that tended to strengthen the defendant's position. This kind of a mixed bag of facts could cause the jury to conclude that there was some other basis for the lawsuit and therefore render the evidence insufficient to support a judgment in its favor.

This is precisely the reason that life insurance agents are required to obtain a legal signature on all sales forms. Without such a signature, the forms cannot be legally binding on the agents. When plaintiffs move forward with a such a motion, they must first obtain the signature of a notary public who signs on the forms. (The attorneys for the defendants, Hillmon and Related Ventures, claim that the defendants are exempt from such a requirement of obtaining a legal signature.) Then, plaintiffs must obtain discovery from a notary who would certify that the notary's signature is truly the one accompanying the forms. Such a certification is not conclusive proof that the notary is lying or withholding information; the notary's failure to produce such evidence could strengthen the plaintiffs' case.

The other method through which plaintiffs might obtain discovery from the insurance company is to file a lawsuit against Hillmon and related parties. Such a lawsuit would require the plaintiffs to obtain discovery from the defendants and their attorneys. A recent California decision provides some guidance as to the format in which such discovery can be served. Specifically, the court held that there are a required time limit within which such discovery can be served, the type of discovery that the defendants must receive, the cost of serving the discovery, and the venue in which the discovery must be served.

If plaintiffs are unable to serve discovery directly on the defendant's insurers, the alternative available to them is to "querge" the complaint. That is, the complaint is filed against the life insurance company, and all references to the underlying case are deleted from the complaint. A California life insurance company may choose to "defer" from its obligations under a class action agreement or a complaint if it is able to avoid a judgment by relying on the fact that a class action lawsuit involves a large number of potential plaintiffs. In this case, the company's insurer is often willing to enter into negotiations with the class members and with the attorneys representing the class.