A Philadelphia trial judge should not have taken a comment in a group of defendants’ answer and new matter to their insurer’s motion for judgment to be an admission that they lacked coverage for an accident, the Superior Court has ruled.
A unanimous three-judge panel ruled May 18 in Century Surety v. Essington Auto Center that a statement made by Essington Auto Center and other defendants that the accident at issue did not involve “garage operations” was not sufficient for the trial court to deem it a judicial admission and use it as the basis to grant Century Surety’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
This content has been archived.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]
