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.

MARY SHORT v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (02/15/85)

filed: February 15, 1985.

MARY SHORT, APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY



No. 00349 PITTSBURGH, 1983, Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 11, 1983, in the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Allegheny County, No. GD 79-28350.

COUNSEL

Charles A. Buechel, Jr., Pittsburgh, for appellant.

William F. Giarla, Pittsburgh, for appellee.

Brosky, Watkins and Hester, JJ.

Author: Hester

[ 339 Pa. Super. Page 126]

Appellant sought to recover double indemnity benefits from appellee, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The non-jury verdict denied appellant recovery.

The lower court en banc dismissed appellant's exceptions. This appeal followed.

Appellant's husband was an employee of General Motors Corporation at the time of his death. The decedent was covered by a group life insurance and accidental death policy through his employer. Appellant was the named beneficiary. The relevant double indemnity clause is as follows:

"If, while insured for Extra Accident Insurance under Group Policy No. 14000-G, the Employee sustains bodily injuries caused solely through violent, external and accidental means, and within one year therafter shall have

[ 339 Pa. Super. Page 127]

    suffered loss of life, or within 2 years shall have suffered any other loss as specified in the Schedule of Losses of this Section A, as a direct result of such bodily injuries independently of all other causes, the Insurance Company shall pay the amount of insurance specified under such loss in said Schedule, provided, however, that in no case shall such payment be made for any loss which is caused wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, by:

(1) disease or bodily or mental infirmity, or by medical or surgical treatment or diagnosis thereof, or"

Appellant contends her husband died as a result of an accident within the meaning of this double indemnity clause. Appellee contends appellant's husband's death was not accidental, but rather the result of a pre-existing ...


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.