Ponder

Ponder v. Blue Cross of Southern California

Good Law
145 Cal. App. 3d 709·193 Cal. Rptr. 632·1983 Cal. App. LEXIS 2003
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 4, 1983Civ. 66903California6,220 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

This appeal is from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant insurance company, Blue Cross of Southern California (Blue Cross). The plaintiffs, Marlene and Tommie Ponder, are policyholders denied coverage for treatment of a condition suffered by Mrs. Ponder. In response to this refusal, the Ponders filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief as well as damages for breach of contract and tortious breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The court granted summary judgment on grounds a provision in the insurance contract effectively ex- eluded Mrs. Ponder’s condition from coverage, hence no triable issues remained.

The central issue on appeal is whether a form insurance contract effectively excludes coverage through a clause couched in undefined technical language not highlighted by location, typesize or otherwise. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that it does not.

I. Facts and Proceedings Below

In early May 1979, Mrs. Tommie Ponder was suffering earaches, throat pains, coughing and headaches. She sought treatment from Harvey S. Kulber, M.D. He initially diagnosed the problem as upper respiratory infection and blocked Eustachian tubes.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.