The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that plaintiffs in roughly 200 similar cases can't sue Met Life for bad faith as a result of insurance agents' alleged misrepresentations as to the nature of the insurance policies that were made at the time the plaintiffs purchased them. The court also held that plaintiffs seeking to sue Met Life under a state consumer protection law had to meet a moderately high standard concerning reliance, but didn't have to show that they had read their policies.
August 10, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a lengthy decision that discusses the grounds on which an insured may sue an insurer if it is alleged the insurance agent misrepresented the nature of the policy sold.
Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., PICS Case No. 07-1111 (Pa. July 18, 2007) Cappy, C.J.; Eakin, J. concurring; Saylor, J. dissenting (49 pages) is one of roughly 200 similar cases currently pending in Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County Common Pleas Court.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
