Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Leslie Stadalman is an employee of D and, as such, is a 'covered person' under that institution's employee health care plan. Gregory Stadalman Leslie's husband is employed by the City of Wichita and is covered under his employer's P group health plan. P's plan provides coverage for Mr. Stadalman's dependents. In the Fall of 1982, Leslie Stadalman incurred medical expenses in the amount of $1,963.19. D refused to pay the claims on the basis it provided only secondary coverage. P initially refused to pay the claims for the same reason -- that its plan provided only secondary coverage. P paid the claims, expressly reserving the right to seek contribution and indemnity from D. P sued D for reimbursement. Both insurance contracts contained provisions stating that the contracts were secondary to any other coverage. The district court held the non-duplication of benefits provisions of the two plans to be conflicting and mutually repugnant and directed that the claim be paid 50% by each plan. P and D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.