*1 may agree with the opinion majority request- this ed charge might have been more it artfully prepared, clearly drew the court’s attention to impor- this most tant element.2 For the trial court this disregard request and to refuse make any reference to the purchasers’ intent was, my a serious error opinion, which gravely prejudiced appellants. I there- would, fore, grant new trial.
Jacobs, J., joins this dissenting opinion. regard, agree 2 In this majority I with the that: “The nice procedure pleading ties of intelligence games make fine lawyers deny justice. but should never used to ultimate This approach reason for our procedure.” modern to rules of civil Appellant, Galvin, v. Occidental Life Insurance
Company of California. *2 Before Ervin, J., April 15,1965. Argued P. Wright, JJ. Montgomery, Jacobs, Hoffman, Watkins, absent). J., (Flood, Tracy,
Herbert with him Lurie Stokes, M. & Lurie, appellant. John H. him é with Shaw Scott, Jr., Reed, Smith,, appellee. McOlay, for
Opinion June 1965: J., Montgomery, Plaintiff-appellant’s course husband was killed industry of his in the milk Greater of the Pittsburgh Milk area. He had been a member *3 Dairy Em- and Ice Cream and Salesmen, Drivers, ployees qualified Local No. and for insurance 205, coverage policy group under a of Octo- insurance dated ber issued the Occidental Life 18, 1954, Company defendant-appellee, of to The Trus- California, Pittsburgh Dairy Industry. tees Greater The provided policy coverages: (a) ordinary several life (b) accidental insurance, death and dismemberment (c) disability pregnancy, due to insurance, and (d) preg- due to accident and sickness other than nancy.
Following appellant her husband’s death claim made payable ordinary coverage for benefits under the life and received same the sum of $5,000. She amade |5,000 further for an claim additional under the acci- dental and coverage, pay- death dismemberment but appellee. of ment this was refused Suit was thereupon entered for the collection of this additional proceeded judge and to trial amount jury. before taking testimony After the lower court dismissed the jury and as a matter of judgment law rendered for the basing judgment defendant, on its of appeal policy. This followed. 64 paragraph on refusing payment relies defendant
In “13. follows: policy reads thirteen exceptions follow- Unless Limitations. General under the ing are made Limitations General policy not insure does Provisions, Schedule (1) of: on for or account be benefits shall person on any bodily injury for which the or sickness regular care presented under the is not is claim whom (2) surgeon; physician serv- dental of a licensed bodily (4) any (3) eye any refractions; kind; ices injury person claim on whom or sickness compensation right under presented or had a has is any Compensation Occupational Disease or Workmen’s injury any bodily from is sus- (5) or which arises law; occupation any in the course tained gain.” compensation, profit, or except- specifically general limitations were These ordinary coverage other from life but not from the ed coverages. they
It defendant’s contention that coverages except applicable to all life insurance. construing it must in its en- be read
tirety gathered the intention of from a of the entire consideration instrument. v. Smith Cas- (1961), Pa. 169 A. 2d sida, and it 404, must way give provi- in a as to construed effect to all of its Quigley v. Western sions. and Southern Insur- Life Company, Superior ance 136 Pa. Ct. A.7 2d 70 *4 (1939). application, part
The issued on was an made provided the contract, that the “Accidental Dismemberment only” Death and for Individuals was “Non-Occupational only.” Considering applica- the it would seem tion alone, reasonable to conclude that general applicable the limitations were to the accident- coverage. and dismemberment al death points, Plaintiff heading precedes to a that however,- said clause thir- “Group Policy Dis- teen, i.e., ability argues dis- Only,” the word ability therefore to mean death and not intended application general her claim. limitations have the disability a recognize has that the We must word reasonably meaning implying animate definite an (p. living Disability 960), object, the in 26A C.J.S. acceptance disability of the total does common term express meaning not the death. 25 C.J.S. same as Disability §1. Death forms insurance consists of all disability relating partial of insurance to the or total distinguished of the insured as from 44 C.J.S. death. privileged §12. are not to use However, we general definition of but determine must parties how it was intended insurance to this paramount The contract. intention of the adopt construing in such a contract the Court will interpretation under all of which, the circumstances probable, ascribes the most case, reasonable, parties, bearing natural intention in mind objects manifestly accomplished. Vending to be Unit Corporation v. (1963). 410 Pa. Lacas, A. 2d 614, 190 Dictionary give way definitions of a word must policy. use made of the word Garabedian v. Met ropolitan Superior Insurance Co., 135 Pa. Ct. Life (1939). A.5 2d 379 meaning if However, of a writ ambiguous ten meaning document is or its doubtful determining parties, the intention writing of strongly against must party be construed most drafting it and which makes a ration probable agreement preferred. al and must Unit Corporation Vending supra. v. Lacas, resolving this issue we note that the contract Group evidenced “Certificate Insurance” at- complaint tached paragraphs contains fourteen numbered appear of which the first gen- twelve to be applicable erally coverages. to all Following number *5 spelled bold paragraphs, out these of twelve Policy “Group Provisions heading, type the aforesaid fol- Only.” This is Disability Applicable to thir- fourteen, thirteen and numbered clauses lowed relating to previously being fourteen and stated teen Following un- fourteen pregnancy. are fourteen there heading, “Additional under the clauses numbered other Group Disability to supplied) reads, Only.” (Emphasis these clauses One of payable individual’s are for loss “Benefits of life surviving beneficiary, otherwise if individual, All bene- other of the insured individual. to estate (Emphasis the insured individual.” fits are supplied) paragraphs three Thereafter follows coverages of the benefits from three describe headings following the follow- and in under the ing (1) In- Accident and Sickness Benefits for order: (2) (3) Pregnancy Individuals; for Benefits dividuals; In- for Accidental Death Dismemberment Benefits dividuals. separate beginning
Lastly, page im- on and not following mediately relating the clause to accidental provisions we find for in- death, etc., life expressly surance individuals excludes application of clause thirteen aforesaid. This section provisions applicable particularly numerous contains distinguished the life insurance benefits from ac- complete system sickness, cident establishes a change beneficiary, optional assignment, of settle- payment proceeds, wholly independent notices, ment, provisions previous policy except gen- provisions enumerated eral one to twelve aforesaid. provisions previously Some mentioned du- expressed plicated although slightly different lan- guage. careful
After consideration of the certificate of in- including application, surance we conclude that applicable provisions thirteen are of clause Our *6 coverage death and for accidental dismemberment. are as follows: reasons coverage application provides that the the
First, against shall accidental death and dismemberment nonoccupational. composed the to indicate contract is so
Second, separate coverage that the life insurance coverages and distinct from the other three which grouped together. by to death in the unnum-
Third, references claims paragraphs heading following bered “Additional Group Disability to Only,” parties clearly express contract their intention to include accidental death claims under heading thereby enlarging insurance, disability. definition of the word
Fourth and there last, evidence defendant’s being Exhibit a bulletin em- B, issued the individual ployes policy, prepared covered which was for approved by distribution and the defendant and the clearly trustees which aforesaid, shows that accidental nonoccupa- death and dismemberment claims must be tional : —“Accidental Death and Dismemberment In- Employees No benefit shall be surance for directly if indirectly, the loss or wholly partly, shall or (6) any bodily injury result from ... or fatal sickness, you or right otherwise, which have or had a com- pensation any compensation under Workmen’s Oc- or cupational (7) any bodily disease or injury, law, fatal or otherwise, arises from or is sustained in the any occupation compensa- course gain.” profit, or tion, any uncertainty
If there is as to the intention of parties (which to a contract we do not believe exists case) accepts normally this law parties. Contracts, §141, 8 P'.L.E., tbe adopted by cases cited therein. met husband appellant’s admitted that
Since it is recovery in the of his occupation, his death course and dismem- is allowable under accidental death provision berment policy. for defendant affirmed.
Judgment Dissenting Opinion J.: Hoffman, I am not ex- convinced that so clearly their pressed intention to include death accidental claims under there- heading disability insurance, the definition of the word by enlarging disability. an insurance contract
my opinion, such contains *7 an should be construed ambiguity most strongly against company which drafted it. in this joins
Jacobs, J., dissenting opinion. v. Maroney. Commonwealth ex Appellant, rel. Davis,