An insurance carrier must continue to defend a snow and ice removal company after it failed to provide enough specificity about known coverage defenses in a reservation of rights letter, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.

In a case captioned Selective Way Insurance v. MAK Services, the frontline appeals court decided on a 2-1 vote that the carrier’s boilerplate reservation of rights letter wasn’t effective since it failed to note a specific exclusion on the policy that clearly pertained to the case. The decision reversed a summary judgment ruling by the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas in favor of the carrier.

This content has been archived.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]