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.

EDWARD BOOTHMAN v. PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND CITY PHILADELPHIA (09/10/82)

filed: September 10, 1982.

EDWARD BOOTHMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND CITY OF PHILADELPHIA



No. 308 Philadelphia, 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division-Law, of Philadelphia County at No. 632 March Term 1978.

COUNSEL

James L. Womer, Philadelphia, for appellant.

George D. Sheehan, Jr., Philadelphia, for Prudential, appellee.

Steven B. Berger, Philadelphia, for City of Philadelphia, appellee.

Wickersham, Brosky and Wieand, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 304 Pa. Super. Page 138]

On March 8, 1978, Edward Boothman filed a complaint in assumpsit against Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter Prudential) alleging, inter alia, that plaintiff Boothman had been involved in a motor vehicle accident with another vehicle in January of 1977, as a result of which he sustained personal injuries. Further it was alleged that plaintiff Boothman had requested the

[ 304 Pa. Super. Page 139]

    defendant, who insured Boothman under a policy of insurance, to make payment of medical bills and lost wages incurred as a result of the accident pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania No-Fault Act.*fn1

Thereafter, on March 30, 1978, Prudential filed an answer to the complaint and filed a complaint against the City of Philadelphia, as an additional defendant, setting forth that at the time of the accident occurring January 26, 1977, plaintiff Edward Boothman was a policeman employed by the City of Philadelphia and was on duty at the time of said accident and alleging further that the security for the payment of basic loss benefits covering the motor vehicle furnished to the plaintiff by the City of Philadelphia was such security as was provided by the City of Philadelphia. Extended pre-trial discovery followed.

On January 24, 1980, the Honorable Edward Rosenwald, Senior Judge, granted a motion of Prudential for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiff's cause of action against it.*fn2 This appeal by Edward Boothman followed.*fn3 We reverse and remand.

In Petraglia v. American Motorists Insurance Company, 284 Pa. Super. 1, 3, 424 A.2d 1360, 1361 (1981), aff'd per curiam, 498 Pa. 32, 444 A.2d 653 (1982), we stated that:

Summary judgment 'shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no ...


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.