Court Opinion

ID: 9863033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 02:51:17.776367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:46:17.002033
License: Public Domain

On Petition to Rehear
The petitioner, Esther Harkavy, has filed herein a forceful, dignified and courteous petition to rehear. In this petition she takes the position that because of the opinion of this Court referred to in our original opinion herein of United Services Automobile Association, etc. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company et al., 220 Tenn. 120, 414 S.W.2d 836 filed April 21, 1967, we should award her a judgment for a pro-rata share of her medical expenses against the defendant, Phoenix Insurance Company, herein.
We were not unmindful that such an application would probably be made when we wrote this opinion, because at that time we were familiar with the conclusion that we had reached in the United Services case, and, since there was some similarity in the two cases, we considered the question then of whether or not this present case should be decided on the same basis as the United Services case, and, after having considered the matter to some extent and debated it in our mind, wé made the statement in this case that, “The factual situation though in the United Services case, supra, presents a different question from that in the case now before us, but in our research of that case we ran into a lot of problems which are now in the instant case.”
Thus it is that we are not surprised that such a contention is now made, but we are well satisfied after consider- . able thought, before the petition herein was filed, and, at . *341the time we prepared the original opinion, that the two cases do not present the same.problems by any means.
In the United Services case we were faced with the anomaly that nnder the literal provisions of each policy, neither could be said to provide valid and collectible insurance with respect to the other, and the clauses were mutually repugnant. Thus it was that we concluded that the Federal case of Oregon Auto. Ins. Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 9 Cir., 195 F.2d 598, should be followed. In the present case a proration situation is not presented because it clearly appears to us the employer’s fire insurance company policy provided other valid and collectible automobile medical payment insurance and thus there was in this case now before us valid and collectible insurance. It seems to-us that this is conclusive of the matter.
. After fully considering the question now and having considered it heretofore as pointed out above, we are satisfied that the two problems are not the same and that there should be no prorata insurance in behalf of Mrs. Harkavy for the reasons heretofore set forth in our original opinion.
The petition to rehear is overruled and denied.