In a case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Old Guard Insurance is appealing a lower court's holding that where an insured reduced an auto insurance policy's liability limit but the insurer failed to get a written election of lower UM/UIM coverage, the insured's UM/UIM coverage limit will be presumed to be the same as the liability coverage limit under state law. In oral arguments, Old Guard argued that such a ruling ignores the insured's intention to reduce his premium and creates an absurd result.
September 14, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
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.
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
