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.
