Filter This View

  • Wintersteen v. Truck Ins. Exch.

    Publication Date: 2018-01-09
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas
    Judge: Judge Djerassi
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1870

    The court granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment against an insurer in this case involving replacement cost coverage, because Pennsylvania law required the insurer to include general contractor overhead and profit in actual cash value payments when use of a general contractor was reasonably likely to be necessary in repairing damages to a home.

  • Seagrave Fire Apparatus, LLC v. CNA d/b/a Continental Casualty Co. et al

    Publication Date: 2018-01-02
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | Personal Injury
    Industry: Insurance | Manufacturing
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Djerassi
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1869

    The defendant insurer was obligated to provide a defense to plaintiff, a manufacturer of fire engines facing hundreds of occupational noise-induced hearing loss claims, since the coverage afforded the insured was primary under the subject policys general insurance provisions. The court recommended affirmance of its order denying defendant summary judgment.

  • Tenbus v. Progressive Direct Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-12-26
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Wayne County
    Judge: Judge Hamill
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1841

    A motor vehicle accident victim was not entitled to recover underinsured motorist benefits from her insurance company, because the other drivers liability coverage for bodily injury was in the exact amount of the previous arbitration award, so the other driver was not considered underinsured. The court sustained defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

  • D & P Constr., LLC v. Towles Ins. Agency, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-28
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Insurance Law
    Industry: Construction | Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
    Judge: Judge Johnson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1725

    Where an insurer mistakenly issued a certificate for workers compensation insurance coverage, then later sent letters to the company requesting additional information and stating that no coverage was in effect, the company was on notice that it had no workers compensation insurance.

  • Reeves v. The Travelers Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-21
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1714

    Defendant insurer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs underinsured motorist claim because the regular use exception in the policy applied where plaintiff was injured in accident while heading to a work site in employers truck as he regularly did and there was no basis for plaintiffs bad faith claim. Motion granted.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Montgomery County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Rickard v. American Natl Property and Cas. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-14
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1694

    Orphans court erred in determining that appellants petition for disbursement of an underinsured motorist insurance settlement was ei-ther barred by collateral estoppel from a case before the bankruptcy court or determined by the documents of the welfare plan that paid deceaseds medical expenses. Reversed.

  • Century Indemnity Co. v. One Beacon Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-07
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1656

    The defendant reinsurers obligation to pay defense expenses to plaintiffs, who paid out significant losses on asbestos-related claims, was not capped by the reinsurance accepted amount listed in the parties facultative certificates, the appellate court determined in this case of first impression. The court affirmed a trial court order granting plaintiffs summary judgment in part.

  • Rancosky v. Washington Natl Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Attorney Work Life Balance | Insurance Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1514

    The Superior Court correctly vacated the trial courts judgment and applied the Terletsky test to decedents bad faith claim against insurer pursuant to Pa.C.S.8371 because trial court erred in demanding proof of insurers subjective motive of ill-will or self-interest. Affirmed

  • Burke v. Independence Blue Cross

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Aerospace | Health Care | Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Chief Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1588

    Under the Autism Recovery Law, the defendant insurers place-of-services exclusion in plaintiffs policy was ineffective to foreclose coverage for in-school, applied behavioral analysis treatment for plaintiffs son, who was diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder. The court affirmed a lower court order finding the exclusion ineffective.

  • Fertig v. Kelley

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1518

    Plaintiff could not maintain a bad faith claim under 42 Pa.C.S. 8371 against the defendant insurance agent since 8371 only governs the conduct of insurers and does not apply to insurance agents and, regardless, the agents actions did not import a dishonest purpose or evince some motive of self-interest or ill-will. The court granted the defendant agents motion for judgment on the pleadings.