Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burks v. Federal Insurance Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 19, 2005Published

1DissentPanella, J.

¶ 1 The issue in this case is whether Burks, as a purported medical payment claimant, is an intended third party beneficiary under the insurance contract. If Burks, as a claimant for medical payments, is a third party beneficiary, then she has the accompanying right to proceed directly against Federal for its refusal to pay medical benefits due under the contract. Unlike the Majority, I find that Burks is an intended third party beneficiary, and therefore, has a cause of action against Federal. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

¶ 2 On April 6, 2001, Burks fell inside a branch office of PNC…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Guy v. LiederbachSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Roach v. Atlas Life Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
  3. Schmalfeldt v. North Pointe InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Price v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. Weavertown Transport Leasing, Inc. v. MoranSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API