Folmar v. Shaffer
Citation | 232 Pa.Super. 22,332 A.2d 821 |
Parties | Darlene E. FOLMAR, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert Lee Folmar, deceased, and Elsie J. Nittinger, Administratrix of the Estate of Raymond L. Nittinger, Jr., deceased, Appellants, v. Aaron D. SHAFFER, Jr., and Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Garnishee-Appellee. |
Decision Date | 11 December 1974 |
Court | Superior Court of Pennsylvania |
Ambrose R. Campana, Williamsport, for appellants.
Arthur Silverblatt, Wilkes-Barre, for appellee Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Garnishee.
Before WATKINS, Presiding Judge, and JACOBS, HOFFMAN, CERCONE, PRICE, VAN der VOORT, and SPAETH, JJ.
On September 2, 1966, Aaron Shaffer, Jr., was the driver of an automobile that was involved in a collision in which appellants' decedents were killed. Appellants sued Shaffer, who in turn joined a Richard Alexander. On May 28, 1968, a jury returned a verdict against Shaffer and in favor of appellants in the amount of $23,125.00; Alexander was held not liable. Judgment was entered on this verdict on August 13, 1968.
In the meantime, on July 11, 1968, Shaffer brought a separate suit against appellee, claiming that he was covered by a policy issued by appellee to one William H Liddic, who is Shaffer's step-father. Shaffer resided with Liddic at the time of the accident. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the ground that its policy did not cover Shaffer's accident because the automobile he was driving was owned by Liddic. On October 27, 1970, the motion was granted. 1
On July 7, 1972, appellee was served as garnishee in the original lawsuit. Appellee resisted the garnishment, contending that any claim Shaffer had had against it had been extinguished by the order of October 27, 1970, and thus there was nothing to attach. On September 19, 1973, on appellee's motion, President Judge GREAVY ordered that summary judgment be entered in appellee's favor, accompanying his order with a careful opinion. This appeal followed.
Appellants claim that they are entitled to sue as third party beneficiaries of the insurance contract. The law is settled that Philadelphia Forrest Hills Corp. v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 208 Pa.Super. 461, 463, 222 A.2d 493, 494 (1966). As indicated in this statement, suit may be maintained if there is an appropriate provision in the policy. Id. This does not however help appellants. They have not sued appellee as the insurer; they have only served it as garnishee. The position they have chosen is that of attaching creditors, not third party beneficiaries. Thus regardless of the wording of the policy, the law of garnishment applies.
Appellants claim that even under the law of garnishment they must prevail. This claim is also without merit. Fisher v. McFarland, 110 Pa.Super. 184, 187, 167 A. 377, 378 (1933). Stated differently, 'an attaching creditor necessarily claims through his debtor, and in the absence of fraud, can claim no greater right than was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carrozza v. Greenbaum
...... Bell, supra at 345 , 812 A.2d at 573 (quoting Folmar v. Shaffer, 232 Pa.Super. 22, 332 A.2d 821, 823 (1974) ). Here, there is no question that Carrozza is a third-party claimant under Dr. Greenbaum's ......
-
Bianco v. Concepts 100, Inc.
......Aacher, 201 Pa.Super. 583, 193 A.2d 769 (1963); Koenig v. Curran's Restaurant & Baking Co., 121 Pa.Super. 201, 183 A. 451 (1936); Shaffer v. Hebenstreit, 119 Pa.Super. 159, 180 A. 725 (1935); Johnson v. Hermann, 101 Pa.Super. 198 (1930); Bank of New Bethlehem ex rel. Maikranz v. ...113, 117, 178 A. 141, 142 (1935); Wheatcroft v. Smith, 239 Pa.Super. 27, 32, 362 A.2d 416, 419 (1976) (plurality opinion); Folmar v. Shaffer, 232 Pa.Super. 22, 24-25, 332 A.2d 821, 823 (1974); Trainer Estate, 166 Pa.Super. 472, 475, 71 A.2d 833, 834 (1950); LaBarre v. Doney, 53 ......
-
Carrozza v. Greenbaum, 2004 PA Super 464 (PA 12/8/2004), 2296 EDA 2003.
...... Bell, supra at 345, 812 A.2d at 573 (quoting Folmar v. Shaffer, 332 A.2d 821, 823 (Pa.Super. 1974). Here, there is no question that Carrozza is a third-party claimant under Dr. Greenbaum's policy as ......
-
Bell v. Slezak
...... Folmar v. Shaffer, 232 Pa.Super. 22, 24, 332 A.2d 821, 823 (1974) ("The law is settled that `in the absence of a statute or a policy provision on which ......