Differing with the earlier holding of a three-judge panel, an en banc panel of the Superior Court has ruled that a homeowners insurer should have to provide coverage to a Pittsburgh area couple sued for negligence after their mentally-disturbed adult son murdered five and severely wounded another during a two-hour April 2000 killing spree.
In an opinion in Donegal Mutual Insurance Co. v. Baumhammers, PICS Case No. 06-0264 (Pa. Super. Feb. 2006) Todd, J.; Lally-Green, J., concurring and dissenting (62 pages), the Superior Court, hearing the case on reargument, held that the Baumhammerses’ alleged negligence with respect to their son’s actions amounted to an occurrence under the Donegal policy.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
