Abernathy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 21178
| Decision Date | 31 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 21178,21178 |
| Citation | 274 S.C. 388,264 S.E.2d 836 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Susan M. ABERNATHY, Respondent-Appellant, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant-Respondent. |
McCants, Nelson, Green & Lafaye, Columbia, for appellant-respondent.
Rosen, Oberman & Rosen, Charleston, for respondent-appellant.
This appeal is from a jury verdict in favor of respondent Susan Abernathy against the appellant The Prudential Insurance Company. We affirm.
In November 1976 respondent purchased a major medical expense insurance policy from appellant. In January 1977 respondent, on the advice of her physicians, began undergoing depilatory treatments for the removal of excess facial hair. Appellant refused to reimburse respondent for the cost of these treatments and respondent instituted this action. A jury verdict for $5,980 was rendered against appellant.
Appellant first asserts the trial court erred in denying its motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and judgment N.O.V. since the cost of the depilatory treatments were not "eligible expenses" under the policy. We disagree.
The policy included as "eligible expenses" charges for "doctors services for surgical procedures and other medical care." (Emphasis supplied). There is no dispute the charges were actually incurred. The only dispute is whether services performed by nonlicensed technicians fall within the phrase "other medical care."
The term "other medical care" is ambiguous, reasonable men could disagree as to its meaning. Group Hospitalization, Inc. v. Levin, 305 A.2d 248 (D.C.App.1973); Zeh v. National Hospital Association, 233 Or. 221, 377 P.2d 852 (1963); In Haggerty's Case, 298 Mass. 466, 11 N.E.2d 583 (1937); 44 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 1626.
"Medical care and treatment" has been defined as "something done in the application of the curative arts, whether by drugs or other therapy, with the end in view of alleviating a pathological condition." Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Bishop, 132 Ga.App. 816, 209 S.E.2d 223, 225 (1974). Respondent's physician testified respondent suffered from hirsutism and he recommended the depilatory treatments to alleviate that condition. We perceive no requirement that treatments be performed by or under the direction of licensed medical personnel. We therefore hold the phrase "other medical care" included the treatments received by respondent.
Appellant next asserts the trial court erred in denying its motions since the depilatory treatments were excluded from the policy's coverage. We disagree.
Appellant relies upon a provision in the policy excluding "(a)nything not ordered by a doctor or not necessary for medical care of illness" and, conceding the depilatory treatments had been recommended by respondent's physicians, urges this Court to construe the term "necessary" as meaning "essential." Exclusions in an insurance policy are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLaughlin v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co.
...recommendation entitled to great weight under the language "necessary to the treatment"); Abernathy v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 274 S.C. 388, 264 S.E.2d 836 (S.C.Sup.Ct.1980) (equating "necessary" with "appropriate"); R.A. v. The Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Docket No. L 8093......
-
Sabatier v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
...See McLaughlin v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 565 F.Supp. 434 (D.C.N.D.Cal.1983). See also Abernathy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 274 S.C. 388, 264 S.E.2d 836 (1980) (the term "necessary" to be construed as meaning appropriate); Fassio v. Montana Physicians' Services, 170 Mont.......
-
Shumake v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...are unambiguous. Three distinct definitions of the term "necessary" are cited at 551 F.Supp. 558: Abernathy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 274 S.C. 388, 264 S.E.2d 836 (1980) (equating "necessary" with "appropriate"); Victum v. Martin, 367 Mass. 404, 326 N.E.2d 12 (1975) (necessary mean......
-
Kinzie v. Physician's Liability Ins. Co., 65358
...other jurisdictions in which courts have disagreed on the meaning of similar terminology. Compare Abernathy v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 274 S.C. 388, 264 S.E.2d 836 (1980) (equating "necessary" with appropriate); Van Vactor v. Blue Cross Ass'n., 50 Ill.App.3d 709, 8 Ill.Dec. 400......
-
Infertility and the ADA: health insurance coverage for infertility treatment.
...1311 (La.App. 1987). (17.) 420 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 1988). (18.) Ralston, 617 So.2d at 1381. (19.) Abematy v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 264 S.E.2d 836 (S.C. 1980) (equating "necessary" with "appropriate"); Van Vactor v. Blue Cross Ass'n, 365 N.E.2d 638 (Ill.App. 1977) (requiring that services......