Gnagey v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1938 |
| Docket Number | 265 |
| Citation | 2 A.2d 740,332 Pa. 193 |
| Parties | Gnagey v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued September 28, 1938.
Appeal, No. 265, March T., 1938, from judgment of C.P Somerset Co., May T., 1937, No. 163, in case of William E Gnagey v. Pennsylvania Threshermen & Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Company. Judgment affirmed.
Assumpsit. Before BOOSE, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was refusal of judgment n.o.v.
Judgment affirmed at cost of appellant.
Clarence L. Shaver, with him Daryle R. Heckman, of Shaver & Heckman, for appellant.
Budd B. Boose, for appellee.
Before KEPHART, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN and BARNES, JJ.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by an employee under a policy issued September 30, 1933, by the defendant insurance company in the form of a Workmen's Compensation Insurance Policy, on the employees of the estate of a decedent. The policy contains an endorsement undertaking coverage of farm labor of the employer "in accordance with the liability for compensation benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act of Pennsylvania."
On September 9, 1934, while the policy was in force, plaintiff, an employee of the estate, was kicked by a colt while working on the farm. As a result of this injury he suffered a paralysis of his left side. Following the accident defendant paid plaintiff compensation at the rate of $9.75 per week for a total of 53 weeks according to the schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act. On September 26, 1935, defendant refused to make further payments, claiming that plaintiff was fully recovered.
On November 4, 1935, plaintiff filed his claim with the Workmen's Compensation Board. Since the claimant was an agricultural worker, the referee dismissed it for want of jurisdiction. The present action was instituted on April 1, 1937, and at the trial a verdict was directed in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $4,421.02. Following the discharge of motions for judgment n.o.v. and a new trial, and entry of judgment on the verdict, defendant appealed.
The assignments of error raise three questions: (1) was the claim barred by the time limitation contained in Section 315 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended; (2) was it error to charge the jury to return a verdict in favor of plaintiff; (3) was the judgment in proper form?
The provisions of the policy by which defendant assumed the liability of the insured employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act do not have the comprehensive application contended for in this case since plaintiff is an agricultural worker and can therefore have no claim against the estate under that act. The board's lack of jurisdiction over such cases cannot be remedied by an agreement between the parties: Thompson v. Parke, 131 Pa.Super. 81. Hence plaintiff's right to recover is based solely on the endorsement attached to the policy providing for the coverage of farm labor. Defendant contends that this endorsement incorporated all the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and, since this suit was not instituted within a year after the last payment, it is barred by Section 315 of that Act.
We do not believe that this is a proper interpretation of that agreement. A reasonable construction of the language used leads clearly to the conclusion that the parties intended only to make the schedule of rates and manner of payments of the act a part of their contract. The act contains numerous provisions dealing with the duties of the board, methods of proof, procedural rules, etc., which by their terms can apply only to cases coming within the jurisdiction of the board. Obviously the language here used can not be construed to incorporate all these provisions into the contract. In construing an identical contract of insurance in Thompson v Parke, supra, the Superior Court said (p. 84): "There is no provision therein that a claim arising from an injury to a farm employee shall follow the practice and procedure of a workmen's compensation case. . . ." Only by a strained construction of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gene's Restaurant, Inc. v. Nationwide Ins. Co.
...289, 239 A.2d 785 (1968); Miller v. Boston Insurance Co., 420 Pa. 566, 218 A.2d 275 (1966); Gnagey v. Pa. Threshermen and Farmers' Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 332 Pa. 193, 2 A.2d 740 (1939); Western Insurance Co. v. Cropper, 32 Pa. 351, 6 P.L.J. 209, 75 Am.Dec. 561 The majority has insen......
-
Turner v. Manufacturers Cas. Ins. Co.
...as entitles the appellant to relief under the provisions of Code, 1951, Article 31A, supra. In Gnagey v. Pennsylvania T. & F. Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 1938, 332 Pa. 193, 2 A.2d 740, 741, an employee brought an action in assumpsit directly against an insurance company under a policy issued ......
-
Radella v. Bankers Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
...74 Pa. D. & C. 495 Radella v. Bankers Mutual Fire Insurance Co No. 224Common Pleas Court of ... 533, 181 N.W ... 733; Great Eastern Casualty Co. et al. v. Solinsky, ... 150 Tenn. 206, 263 ... Co., 159 La. 641, 105 So. 918. In Pennsylvania the rule ... is otherwise, and recovery is ... In Gnagey v ... Pa. Thresh. & F. M. Cas. I. Co., 332 Pa ... ...
-
Bair v. Blue Ribbon, Inc.
...Accident and Liability Ins. Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 191 Cal. 770, 218 P. 563; Gnagey v. Pennsylvania Threshermen and Farmers Mutual Casualty Co., 332 Pa. 193, 2 A.2d 740. The claimant's proper forum here is the district court rather than the industrial II. Claimant also argue......