Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

FINKEL v. SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY CANADA (04/04/73)

decided: April 4, 1973.

FINKEL, APPELLANT,
v.
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA



Appeal from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, May T., 1970, No. 487, in case of Charles S. Finkel v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.

COUNSEL

Mark S. Refowich, with him Herbert Fishbone and Fishbone and Refowich, for appellant.

H. Ober Hess, with him John F. Oldt, and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, for appellee.

Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Packel, JJ. Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J. Spaulding and Cercone, JJ., join in this dissenting opinion.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 272]

The six Judges who heard and decided this appeal being equally divided, the judgment is affirmed.

Disposition

Judgment affirmed.

Dissenting Opinion by Hoffman, J.:

Appellant contends that the lower court was in error in granting a summary judgment and holding that a group accident and sickness insurance policy issued to him by his employer, the appellee, did not obligate the appellee to pay certain medical expenses which appellant incurred prior to the termination of the insurance contract.

During the period from July 1, 1968 to May 31, 1969, appellant was employed by the appellee insurance company as an agent. One of the benefits of this employment was the appellee's issuance of a group accident and sickness policy to the appellant. Both parties to the instant matter contributed to the premiums. On December 14, 1968, the appellant sustained injuries to his face and mouth in a snowmobile accident. The appellant was subsequently discharged as appellee's agent on May 31, 1969. This discharge simultaneously terminated the group insurance policy.*fn1 Appellee, nevertheless,

[ 224 Pa. Super. Page 273]

    complied with the policy provisions and paid the medical bills which appellant received prior to the date when the policy lapsed. Appellant, however, had been treated for these same dental and facial injuries subsequent to his discharge as an agent. The appellee has refused to pay these later bills. In essence, the appellant insists that his medical treatment was of a continuing nature. Since this continuing treatment began prior to his release as an agent, appellant contends ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.