Legal Opinion

Provident Mutual Life Insurance v. Camerlin

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Decided February 19, 1982No. Civ. A. 81-2007PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

COHILL, District Judge.

The plaintiffs here, Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company of Philadelphia (“Provident”) and Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania (“Bell”), are both Pennsylvania corporations. They brought this interpleader action in an apparent effort to consolidate in one trial a number of disputes and potential disputes growing out of a policy of life insurance issued by Provident to Jack Walton, a former employee of Bell. By reason of his employment with Bell, Mr. Walton was insured under a Provident group insurance policy, issued in 1957. He had…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. TashireSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company Of Philadelphia v. Selma EhrlichCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
  3. PROVIDENT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF PHILA v. EhrlichDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Provident Mutual Life Insurance v. CamerlinDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Progressive Casualty Insurance v. Belmont BancorpDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API