Irby v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.

Citation175 So.2d 9
Decision Date03 May 1965
Docket NumberNo. 1782,1782
PartiesHarvey L. IRBY v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

James J. Gleason, III, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.

Hammett, Leake & Hammett, Robert E. Leake, Jr., New Orleans for defendant-appellant.

Before McBRIDE, SAMUEL and HALL, JJ.

SAMUEL, Judge.

This is a suit on a policy of automobile liability insurance issued to the plaintiff by the defendant. Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident while he was on active duty with the United States Coast Guard. He was treated in a local United States Public Health Service Hospital for the injuries sustained in the accident. The reasonable value of the care and treatment furnished by the hospital was $312. The respective claims against the tort-feasor and his insurer, that of plaintiff for personal injuries and that of the United States, through the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, in the amount of $312 for hospital care and treatment, were settled.

Plaintiff then brought this action under the medical payments provision of his policy with the defendant seeking to recover for himself the sum of $312, the value of the medical and hospital services he had received, plus penalties and attorney's fees. There was judgment in the trial court on the merits in favor of plaintiff as prayed. Defendant has appealed therefrom contending the policy provides only for reimbursement of 'incurred' medical and hospital expenses, plaintiff never 'incurred' any such expenses, and therefore the judgment appealed from should be reversed.

Under the pertinent portion of the policy's medical payments provision the insurer is required to pay to the insured, who has sustained bodily injury caused by accident, '* * * all reasonable expenses incurred * * * for necessary medical, surgical, X-ray and dental services, * * * and necessary ambulance, hospital, professional nursing and funeral services: * * *.' As established by the record and under the provisions of a Federal statute, 42 U.S.C.A. § 253, plaintiff was never charged with the medical and hospital services he received and, because of his status as a member of the United States Coast Guard on active duty, he was under no obligation to pay for those services; the government was required to furnish them without charge. Another Federal statute, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2651, provides that when the United States is required to furnish hospital and medical care and treatment under circumstances creating a tort liability upon a third person (as is the case here), the United States has the right to recover from the third person the reasonable value of the care and treatment so furnished and, as to this right, is subrogated to any right or claim possessed by the injured person.

As used in the policy in suit, the word 'incurred' emphasizes the idea of liability and the definition of 'incur' is: 'To have liabilities (or a liability) thrust upon one by act or operation of law'; a thing for which there exists no obligation to pay, either express or implied, cannot in law constitute an 'incurred expense'; a debt or expense has been incurred only when liability attaches. Drearr v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., La.App., 119 So.2d 149; United States v. St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co., 8 Cir., 238 F.2d 594; see also Stuyvesant Insurance Co. of New York v. Nardelli, 5 Cir., 286 F.2d 600, 603.

The instant case in its entirety is based on the contract of insurance between the litigants. If the defendant is not bound by that contract to pay, or to reimburse plaintiff for, the cost of the medical and hospital services plaintiff seeks to recover by this suit, there must be judgment for the defendant. As the policy requires payment by the defendant only of 'incurred' expenses and as plaintiff never was under any obligation to pay the medical and hospital expenses and therefore never 'incurred' the same, the defendant cannot be forced to pay under its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Auto Club Prop. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Moser
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • April 25, 2022
    ...... by the Government," she was "entitled to no more than this amount" under her medical payments provision); Irby v. Gov't Emp. Ins. Co. , 175 So. 2d 9, 11-12 (La. Ct. App. 1965) (active duty member of the Coast Guard, injured in an automobile accident, was treated in "a local United State......
  • Graham v. Reserve Life Ins. Co., 529
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1968
    ...Life Insurance Co. v. Coke, 254 Miss. 936, 943, 183 So.2d 490, 493, adopted the following definition from Irby v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 175 So.2d 9 (La.App.): "As used in the policy in suit the word 'incurred' emphasizes the idea of liability and the definition of 'incur' is: ......
  • Government Emp. Ins. Co. v. Vail
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 1981
    ...Co., 499 F.2d 1355 (9th Cir. 1974); United States v. St. Paul Mercury Ind. Co., 238 F.2d 594 (8th Cir. 1956); Irby v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 175 So.2d 9 (La.App.1965); Gordon v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 238 S.C. 438, 120 S.E.2d 509 (1961); Sanner v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 150 N.......
  • Hoffman v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Am.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • June 7, 2013
    ...were willing to accept as full payment for their services—the discounted bill.” In support, Travelers cites Irby v. Government Emp. Ins. Co., 175 So.2d 9 (La.App. 4th Cir.1965); Brackens v. Allstate Ins. Co., 339 So.2d 486, (La.App. 2nd Cir.1976);[1 Cir. 5]Drearr v. Connecticut Life Ins. Co......
  • 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