 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Elsner v. Farmers Insurance Group12/15/2005
ary: (1) the doctor was "only one of many health care providers" that the insured could choose from, and (2) the doctor was "not obliged under any statutory scheme to provide medical treatment to" the insured individuals. Id. at 1056. Thus, the court concluded that the doctor was "only an incidental beneficiary of the [insurance company's] PIP policy and, as such, not entitled to recovery in a direct action to enforce the terms of that policy." Id. at 1056-1057.
The present case is virtually identical to the Ludmer and Parrish cases. In both instances, there was no support for a finding that the health-care provider was an intended third-party beneficiary. In this case, Appellant was a member of a large class of health-care providers who could provide services to Mrs. Langley. There is nothing in the contract to indicate that he was an intended third-party beneficiary and, if anything, he was merely an incidental beneficiary who does not possess the right to bring a direct action against Appellee. Consequently, the trial court correctly granted Appellee's motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|