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.

MICHAEL TANKLE v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND UNITED STATES AMERICA (09/10/82)

filed: September 10, 1982.

MICHAEL TANKLE, APPELLANT,
v.
PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR



No. 2527 October Term, 1979, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action-Law, of Montgomery County at No. 77-16825.

COUNSEL

Edward F. Chacker, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Charles W. Craven, Philadelphia, for Prudential, appellee.

Freddi Lipstein, Washington, D.C., for participating party.

Cercone, P.j., Wickersham and Van der Voort, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 58]

The issues in this appeal involve the application of the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act*fn1 to a

[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 59]

    person on active duty in the United States military service. The United States has also intervened in this appeal in order to assert its interests as the provider of appellant, Michael Tankle's, medical care.

The facts in this case may be summarized as follows. Michael Tankle sustained serious injuries in an automobile accident which occurred in Pennsylvania on August 5, 1975. At the time of the accident, Tankle was on active duty in the United States Navy, and he had a no-fault motor vehicle insurance policy issued by Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Prudential). Tankle's medical expenses resulting from the accident totaled $23,483.55. In addition, Tankle's wages and allowances during the period which he was unable to serve due to his medical treatment and recuperation amounted to $16,948.75. The United States assumed all of Tankle's medical expenses and paid Tankle his wages and allowances during the period which he was unable to serve.

Tankle submitted a claim to Prudential for no-fault benefits. Prudential refused to pay Tankle's claim, and Tankle filed a complaint in assumpsit against Prudential on October 5, 1977. After the pleadings were closed, both Tankle and Prudential filed motions for summary judgment.*fn2 On November

[ 306 Pa. Super. Page 608]

, 1979, the lower court entered an order sustaining Prudential's motion for summary judgment and denying Tankle's motion for ...


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.