Counsel for two restaurant owners told the state Supreme Court in Pittsburgh last week that a nearly 50-year-old case dealing with the definition of an insured in anomnibusinsurance policy’s employer liability exemption is being applied too broadly, and the courts should have the discretion to interpret the precise language of the insurance policy at issue.
Attorney Christina L. Hausner of Russell, Krafft & Gruber contended that the definitions of the insurance policy at issue in Mutual Benefit Insurance v. Politopoulos should not be interpreted as defining her clients, the defendants in the case, as employers that would fall under an exemption in the policy. The court’s 1967 ruling in Pennsylvania Manufacturer’s Association Insurance v. Aetna Casualty, which ruled that a company denied as an insured under another company’s omnibus policy must also be considered an employer of the policy holder’s employees, did not apply to the case, she argued.
This content has been archived.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]
