Jay Blood’s father wanted a more affordable automobile insurance premium when he reduced the policy’s liability limit weeks before his son was injured while riding in a friend’s car.

For that reason, it’s counterintuitive to argue Blood’s father intended to increase his uninsured motorist/underinsured motorist coverage, an attorney for Old Guard Insurance Co. argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Monday in Blood v. Old Guard Insurance Co.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

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]