Schambelan v. Preferred Accident Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Schambelan v. Preferred Accident Insurance, 62 Pa. Super. 445 (1916)
1916 Pa. Super. LEXIS 447
Head, Henderson, Kephart, Orlady, Porter, Rice, Trexler

Schambelan v. Preferred Accident Insurance

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

A careful consideration of the record in this case with the exhaustive and convincing opinion filed by Judge Crane, has led us to the conclusion that the facts found by him, and the legal deductions flowing therefrom, fully warranted his refusal to grant a new trial or enter a judgment non obstante veredicto for the defendant.

The cases of Bartels B. Co. v. Employers I. Co., 251 Pa. 63, and Curran v. National Life Ins. Co., 251 Pa. 420, are not in conflict with those cited in the opinion of the court. The record discloses the fact that as soon as the plaintiff herein was apprised of the injuries to Jennie Colmar, resulting from the accident of Jan. 1,1914, and the claim made by her on that account, he immediately gave notice to the defendant, as required by the terms of the policy.

The judgment is affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Schambelan v. Preferred Accident Insurance Co.
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Insurance — Liability insurance — Notice of accident — Notice of claim. Where a policy of liability insurance provides that “the assured upon the occurrence of an accident shall give immediate written notice thereof with the fullest information obtainable” to the company, and that “if claim is made on account of such accident the assured shall give like notice thereof;” the assured is not barred from recovery upon the policy by the fact that he did not give immediate notice of the accident, where it appears that he had no knowledge of a person injured therein, and he gives immediate notice as soon as he hears that a person was injured and that a claim was made.