An order of joinder could have permitted a couple’s underinsured motorist claim against their own insurer and their tort claim against the defendant tortfeasor to be tried together, a Montour County judge has ruled, but for a venue clause in the plaintiffs’ policy the judge said forced the litigation against their insurer to take place in their county of domicile.
Deciding that Pennsylvania jurisprudence favors consolidation when the issues in the motor vehicle claim and UIM claim involve the same questions of law or fact, Common Pleas Judge Gary E. Norton denied the insurer’s bid on preliminary objections to have the cases tried separately on the issue of joinder. Because of the venue clause, however, the decision does more to forge a body of post-Koken case law in Montour County than it does to keep the cases together.
This content has been archived.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]
