Filter This View

  • Major v. Cruz

    Publication Date: 2024-03-01
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Stabile
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 18 EDA 2023

    Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of insurer in appellant's action for UIM coverage and court found appellant's car policy's household exclusion was valid and enforceable, UIM coverage in her mother's car's policy, which she was driving at the time of the accident, was the only UIM coverage applicable and the coordination of benefits clause had no effect. Affirmed.

  • Humphreys v. SureTec Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-03-01
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance | State and Local Government
    Court: Commonwealth Court
    Judge: Judge Covey
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 1 BIC 2023

    Court overruled defendant's preliminary objections to insurance liquidator's action seeking to void money transferred by defendant under a supersedeas bond because court found that contrary to defendant's argument, insurer's liability for the judgment underlying the action was not contingent upon the order affirming the case but insurer's liability attached as soon as the district court entered its Nov. 30, 2020 court order. Preliminary objections overruled.

  • Rush v. Erie Ins. Exch

    Publication Date: 2024-02-16
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Donohue
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 77 MAP 2022

    Superior court's conclusion that the "regular use" exclusion in an automobile insurance policy violated the language of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law was erroneous because court was bound by the decisions in Burstein v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 809 A.2d 204, and Williams v. GEICO Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., 32 A.3d 1195, that the "regular use" exclusion was a permissible limitation of UIM coverage under the MVFRL. Reversed.

  • In re: Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pennsylvania

    Publication Date: 2024-02-16
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Health Care | Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 71 MAP 2021

    Insurance rehabilitator possessed broad statutory authority to propose and implement plan for the rehabilitation of a financially-distressed insurer, including when that plan would affect policies issued in other states. Order of the commonwealth court affirmed.

  • Ward v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co

    Publication Date: 2024-02-16
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Scott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-3666

    Plaintiff moved to remand his breach of contract and bad faith action and court found insurer timely removed the case because it removed the action within 30 days of service of the complaint, which was the "initial pleading," and neither 28 U.S.C. §1446(b)(3) nor 28 U.S.C. §1446(c)(1) applied. Motion denied.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Chester County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Doe v. Independence Blue Cross

    Publication Date: 2024-02-09
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Savage
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 23-1530

    Court denied summary judgment dismissal of sex discrimination claim against insurer where there was sufficient evidence to find that insurer relied upon its consultants' determination that plaintiff's facial features did not fall outside the normal appearance of an average female. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied in part and granted in part.

  • United Rentals N. Am. Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-01-29
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge McKee
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-2297

    Defendant appealed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim.

  • Creighton Prop. Holdings, LLC v. Nautilus Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-01-22
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Construction | Insurance | Real Estate
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Western
    Judge: District Judge Hardy
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 21-280

    General liability insurance policy expressly applied policy exclusions to the exclusions listed in an endorsement naming additional insured, precluding additional insured from filing claim for damage caused by primary insured where policy expressly excluded coverage for commercial property damage. Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.

  • Pharmacia Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2024-01-22
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Judge Shwartz
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 22-2586

    Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendant ruling that defendant did not owe a duty to pay plaintiff's settlement and defense costs from a shareholder class action.

  • Watchworld Worldwide v. Erie Ins. Exch.

    Publication Date: 2024-01-22
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance | Non-Profit
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Colins
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 1221 WDA 2022

    Trial court erred in finding for plaintiff in action over insurance coverage for electronic data deleted from a third party's computer and court found that while the term "your computers" was ambiguous and had to be construed in favor of plaintiff, there was no evidence to show the cost of replacing the data exceeded the policy deductible and defendant had a reasonable basis, as a matter of law, for denying the claim. Vacated.