Frisch v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Decision Date23 March 1971
Citation275 A.2d 849,218 Pa.Super. 211
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court
PartiesFred W. FRISCH, Appellant v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Appellee.

Herbert F. Rubenstein, Lefkoe & Beeghley, Conshohocken, for appellant.

Mason Avrigian, A. Tilson, Stefan, Timoney, Knox & Avrigian, Ambler, for appellee.

Before WRIGHT, P.J., and WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING and CERCONE, JJ.

MONTGOMERY, Judge.

This is an action in assumpsit brought by Fred W. Frisch, the appellant, under a Homeowner's Insurance Policy issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, the appellee, to Odell Richardson, the homeowner, to recover medical expenses incurred by appellant. The sole issue on this appeal is the construction and application of an exclusionary clause in the insurance policy, the case having been submitted on a case stated. The lower court construed the exclusionary clause in favor of the insurance company.

On or about September 20, 1965, the appellant, while employed by Richardson, was painting the outside of the premises covered by the subject insurance policy, located at 702 Hamel Avenue, Ardsley, Pennsylvania, and fell while descending an extension ladder sustaining the injuries on which he sued State Farm. The insurance policy provided that State Farm would pay reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred within one year of the date of an accident to a person sustaining bodily injuries while on the premises of the insured. The pertinent exclusion clause provided that the policy did not apply '* * * to bodily injury (1) to any person * * * on the premises because of a business conducted thereon, or is injured by an accident arising out of such business * * *'

It is the appellant's contention that this clause contains an inherent ambiguity, i.e., that the phrase 'a business conducted thereon' can apply, first, to a situation where the owner or another person with permission of the owner is conducting a business on the premises, such as a retail store, and a person sustains bodily injuries while on the premises for the purpose exclusively of patronizing such business; and, second, it can apply to a situation where a person, who incidentally is conducting a 'business' such as an independent contractor or a newsboy or other business invitee, is on the premises at the implied or explicit request of the owner. The appellee argues that there is no ambiguity, that the distinction contended by the appellant is without a difference, and that in any event, the exclusionary clause applies in both situations. The lower court also found no ambiguity and was of the opinion that all business invitees were meant to be excluded.

As the appellant points out, there do not appear to be any cases in point in Pennsylvania. However, see Wymore v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, 182 Neb. 763, 157 N.W.2d 194 (1968). In that remarkably similar case, the plaintiff, an independent contractor, while performing repairs to the roof of the insured homeowner's dwelling, fell off a ladder, sustaining injuries resulting in his death. The insurance policy in that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Ripley v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 25 Noviembre 2014
    ...to the general liability of the insurer are to be strictly construed against the insurance company.” Frisch v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 218 Pa.Super. 211, 275 A.2d 849, 851 (1971). Thus, if denial of coverage is to be sustained here, the insurance company must affirmatively show that......
  • Kelmo Enterprises, Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 20 Febrero 1981
    ... ... effect of the exclusion in his fire insurance policy, we ... affirmed the order of the lower ... on the state of mind exception to the hearsay rules. I think ... this ... carrier which wrote the policy. Frisch v. State Farm Fire ... & Casualty Company, 218 Pa.Super ... ...
  • Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. US Fid. & Guar. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 8 Diciembre 1981
    ...was aware of the exclusion or limitation and that the effect thereof was explained to him. See e.g., Frisch v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 218 Pa.Super. 211, 275 A.2d 849 (1971); Purdy v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York, 50 D. & C.2d 230, 235 230 Pa.Super. at 516-17, 327 A.......
  • Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Bruno
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • 27 Septiembre 1983
    ...requires disputed policy provisions to be construed strictly against the insurance company. See, e.g., Frisch v. State Farm, 218 Pa.Super. 211, 275 A.2d 849 (1971); Evans v. Baltimore Life Ins. Co., 216 Pa.Super. 425, 268 A.2d 155 (1970); Simon v. Hospital Service Ass'n, 192 Pa.Super. 68, 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT