Case #2
Philadelphia County (34998)
This was a professional malpractice action filed by the plaintiff tire corporation against the defendant insurance agency. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to properly place its workers compensation coverage, leaving the plaintiff without coverage when one of its employees was injured in an automobile accident. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's employee was not in the course of his employment at the time he was injured and, therefore, was not entitled to workers compensation. The State Workmen's Insurance Fund, through which the plaintiff's policy was placed, was also named as a defendant, but was dismissed before the case went to the jury. The president of the plaintiff corporation (who was also the employee injured) testified that he purchased workers compensation insurance through the defendant agency and was told by the defendant that he had coverage as of April 24, 1987. However, the plaintiff introduced evidence that the defendant did not mail the plaintiff's insurance application to the State Workmen's Insurance Fund until April 30th and sent only 25% of the required premium. On May 8, 1987, the plaintiff's insurance application was returned to the defendant agency by the State Workmen's Insurance Fund due to insufficiency of the premium forwarded. On May 12, the defendant forwarded the full premium to the State Fund and on May, 15, 1987, the plaintiff's workers compensation became effective, according to evidence presented. The plaintiff's employee was involved in an automobile accident on May 11, 1987, while delivering a tire on his way home from work.
The plaintiff's damages were stipulated as $84,893 and the injured employee obtained a judgment against the plaintiff employer for his amount as a result of the absence of workers compensation coverage. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's employee was outside of the course of his employment at the time of the automobile accident and was not entitled to collect workers compensation, even if the policy was in effect at the time of the injury. The jury found for the plaintiff in the amount of $84,893. The case is currently on appeal. Peiper vs. State Workmen's Insurance Fund. Case no. 87-12-00834; Judge Alfred J. DiBona, Jr., 10-2-92. Attorney for plaintiff: Louis Podel of Wapner, Newman & Associates in Phila.; Attorney for defendant agency: John S. Anooshian of White & Williams in Phila.
The case(s) cited herein was(were) reprinted with the permission of the publisher Jury Verdict Review Publications, Inc. www.jvra.com
These real life claims scenarios and jury verdicts are sponsored by InsuranceNewsletters.com, the premier provider of client newsletters for Insurance Agencies. While AgencyEquity.com will feature cases that are of interest to insurance agencies, InsuranceNewsletters.com content will focus on cases that are of interest to insurance consumers. Properly educating clients on real life situations helps them better understand the need for proper liability coverage. To learn more, go to InsuranceNewsletters.com.
