Gropman

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Gropman

Good Law
163 Cal. App. 3d 33·209 Cal. Rptr. 468
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 27, 198416186California3,007 words

Opinion

Opinion

The following statement of facts and summary of proceedings in the trial court are excerpted from the engrossed settled statement filed herein:

" Testimony at Trial: Only two (2) witnesses provided testimony at time of trial, both of whom were called by plaintiff, Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company (`Hartford') — Helen Gropman, the defendant in this action, and John Rath, the assistant regional claims writing manager for plaintiff, Hartford.

"Helen Gropman: Helen Gropman testified that she and her husband purchased Hartford policies of automobile insurance from the late 1950's or early 1960's, until 1975. The insurance policies were always purchased from their insurance agents — James Feinhor from 1962 through 1975, and Irv Blech prior to 1962. The insurance policies always contained a Medical Reimbursement clause, which provided that in the event that Mrs. Gropman or her husband were involved in an automobile-related accident, Hartford would pay for their medical bills.

"In May 1974, and again in July 1975, Mrs. Gropman was injured in automobile accidents, neither of which was her fault. After each accident, she notified Hartford of her injuries…

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.