Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 80-76.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-76.,80-76. |
| Citation | 434 A.2d 403 |
| Parties | Gus PAPANICOLAS, Appellant, v. GROUP HOSPITALIZATION, INC., and Medical Service of D.C., Appellees. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
David J. Frantz, Washington, D.C., with whom Katherine Kravetz, Washington, D.C., was on the briefs, for appellant.
John J. Brennan, III, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before KELLY, MACK and PRYOR, Associate Judges.
Appellant appeals the Superior Court's order granting appellees' motion for directed verdict. We affirm.
Appellant was a subscriber to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield medical insurance plan offered by appellees.1 The insurance contract provided, inter alia, that compensation to physicians for services covered would be paid according to the applicable schedule of fees in effect when the service was rendered. The schedule of fees was not attached to the insurance contract, although it was made available to all subscribers upon request.
In 1977 and 1978, appellant underwent surgery for corneal transplants in both eyes. The surgeon's charge for each operation was $1,900. Appellees, in accordance with the fee schedule, paid appellant benefits of $522 for the first operation and $669.50 for the second operation.2
Unsatisfied with these benefits, appellant filed a cause of action alleging, in essence, breach of contract, and requesting as relief damages in the amount of the unpaid balance on his operations. At trial, appellant testified that he believed the insurance policy would cover all of his expenses, and that his belief was not based on the contract itself, but rather on a promotional brochure which was not admitted into evidence. He also testified that at no time prior to his operations did he attempt to ascertain the benefits delineated in the fee schedule.
At the close of the evidence, appellees moved for a directed verdict. In granting that motion, the trial court concluded that the language of the insurance contract was unambiguous and that the benefits available to appellant as a result of his operations were specifically defined in the fee schedule.
On appeal, appellant contends that the language in the insurance contract providing that appellees would compensate physicians "according to the applicable Schedule of Fees in effect when the service is rendered" constitutes an ambiguous limitation of benefits which should be construed against the insurer. Moreover, appellant contends that since the terms of this alleged limitation of benefits were not clearly detailed in the contract itself, reasonable expectations of what the benefits entailed should control.
On motion for a directed verdict, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is sought. Bauman v. Sragow, D.C. App., 308 A.2d 243 (1973); Super.Ct.Civ.R 50(a). Generally, cases are not to be submitted for jury consideration when there is no evidentiary foundation on which to predicate intelligent deliberation and reach a reliable verdict. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Staten, D.C.App., 201 A.2d 528 (1964); Simpson v. Logan Motor Co., D.C.App., 192 A.2d 122 (1963). Viewing the evidence in the light most...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howard University v. Best
...is appropriate only when the evidence is so clear that reasonable men could reach but one conclusion. Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 434 A.2d 403, 404 (D.C. 1981). This court has held that if a contract is ambiguous, and the evidence supports more than one reasonable interpreta......
-
Vassiliades v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros.
...conclusion as to the proper judgment." District of Columbia v. Cassidy, 465 A.2d 395, 397 (D.C.1983); Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 434 A.2d 403, 404 (D.C.1981); Faniel v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 404 A.2d 147, 150 (D.C.1979). On appeal, this court must apply the sa......
-
Scott v. James, 97-CV-2042.
...deliberation and reach a reliable verdict.'" Twyman v. Johnson, 655 A.2d 850, 852 (D.C.1995) (quoting Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 434 A.2d 403, 404 (D.C.1981)). Our review of an order "[denying] a new trial is limited to whether the ruling amounted to an abuse of discretion.......
-
Diamond Service Co. v. Utica Mut. Ins. Co.
...may be directed only when the evidence is so clear that reasonable men could reach but one conclusion. Id.; Papanicolas v. Group Hospitalization, Inc., 434 A.2d 403, 404 (D.C.1981). Viewed in the light most favorable to the appellants the evidence showed that Mrs. Epstein slipped and broke ......