Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1913

Pfeiler v. Penn Allen Portland Cement Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided April 28, 1913 · Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker

240 Pa. 468; 87 A. 623; 1913 Pa. LEXIS 697

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Campbell v. Philadelphia-Bridgeton Bus Co. (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas 1929)
Hughes v. Prudential Lines, Inc. (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993)
Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America v. Neel (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas 1946)
Newton v. Westchester Fire Insurance (W. Va. 1938)
Tubize Chatillon Corp. v. White Transp. Co. (District Court, D. Maryland 1935)
Moses v. Ferrel & Indemnity Co. of America (Pa. Super. Ct. 1928)
Combs v. Hunt (Va. Ct. App. 1924)
Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Martin (Ky. Ct. App. 1915)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

The plaintiff obtained a judgment in an action for personal injuries against the Penn Allen Portland Cement Company, which became insolvent and was adjudged a bankrupt. He filed a bill for subrogation to the rights of the cement company under an indemnity policy of accident insurance issued to it by the JEtna Life Insurance Company and for a decree requiring the insurance company to pay to him the amount of his judgment against the cement company. The court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the bill.

The insurance policy provided that: “No action shall lie against the company to recover for any loss or expense under this policy unless it shall be brought by the assured for loss or expense actually sustained and paid in money by him after actual trial of the issue, nor *470unless such, action is brought within two years after payment of such loss or expense.” The cement company has paid nothing and under the express terms of its contract it is not entitled to recover from the insurance company. Since it has no right of action there is nothing to which the plaintiff could be subrogated. For this reason the bill was dismissed by the learned judge of the Common Pleas and in the decree entered we fully concur.

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.