In subsequent cases, however, the “so called general rule has morphed into the minority, as most exclusion clauses have been deemed valid,” the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in 2003 in Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Riley. The rationale relied upon by the court invalidating those exclusions was that of cost control. The focus on cost control was outlined in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cases of Eichelman v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. Colbert.
Recent Supreme Court decisions, however, have raised issues regarding the continued reliance of the insurance industry upon the goal of cost control in seeking the validation of policy limitations.
This content has been archived.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]
