The court denied defendant Erie Insurance's motion for summary judgment based on a "lack of clarity" regarding whether plaintiff's use of his father's vehicle fell within the "regular use" exclusion of the policy defendant issued to plaintiff's mother.
October 04, 2011 at 10:00 AM
1 minute read
Rother v. Erie Ins. Exchange, PICS Case No. 11-4135 (C.P. Luzerne Aug. 24, 2011) Cosgrove, J. (6 pages).
The court denied defendant Erie Insurance’s motion for summary judgment based on a “lack of clarity” regarding whether plaintiff’s use of his father’s vehicle fell within the “regular use” exclusion of the policy defendant issued to plaintiff’s mother.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law.com celebrates the California law firms and legal departments driving the state's dynamic legal landscape.
The Texas Lawyer honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in Texas.
Mid sized NYC Personal Injury Defense Firm seeking to immediately hire several attorneys to join our firm. Preferred candidates are those w...
Mid-size Parsippany based law firm with a statewide practice is searching for a full-time motivated associate litigation attorney with 3-5 y...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in Princeton, NJ for an associate in the Litigation Department. The ideal candidate will have tw...
