Filter This View

  • Reeves v. The Travelers Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-21
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Baylson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1714

    Defendant insurer was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs underinsured motorist claim because the regular use exception in the policy applied where plaintiff was injured in accident while heading to a work site in employers truck as he regularly did and there was no basis for plaintiffs bad faith claim. Motion granted.

  • Rickard v. American Natl Property and Cas. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-14
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Shogan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1694

    Orphans court erred in determining that appellants petition for disbursement of an underinsured motorist insurance settlement was ei-ther barred by collateral estoppel from a case before the bankruptcy court or determined by the documents of the welfare plan that paid deceaseds medical expenses. Reversed.

  • Century Indemnity Co. v. One Beacon Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-11-07
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Ott
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1656

    The defendant reinsurers obligation to pay defense expenses to plaintiffs, who paid out significant losses on asbestos-related claims, was not capped by the reinsurance accepted amount listed in the parties facultative certificates, the appellate court determined in this case of first impression. The court affirmed a trial court order granting plaintiffs summary judgment in part.

  • Rancosky v. Washington Natl Ins. Co.

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Attorney Work Life Balance | Insurance Law
    Industry:
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Baer
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1514

    The Superior Court correctly vacated the trial courts judgment and applied the Terletsky test to decedents bad faith claim against insurer pursuant to Pa.C.S.8371 because trial court erred in demanding proof of insurers subjective motive of ill-will or self-interest. Affirmed

  • Burke v. Independence Blue Cross

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Aerospace | Health Care | Insurance
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Chief Justice Saylor
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1588

    Under the Autism Recovery Law, the defendant insurers place-of-services exclusion in plaintiffs policy was ineffective to foreclose coverage for in-school, applied behavioral analysis treatment for plaintiffs son, who was diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder. The court affirmed a lower court order finding the exclusion ineffective.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Montgomery County Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Fertig v. Kelley

    Publication Date: 2017-10-24
    Practice Area: Insurance Law
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
    Judge: Judge Nealon
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1518

    Plaintiff could not maintain a bad faith claim under 42 Pa.C.S. 8371 against the defendant insurance agent since 8371 only governs the conduct of insurers and does not apply to insurance agents and, regardless, the agents actions did not import a dishonest purpose or evince some motive of self-interest or ill-will. The court granted the defendant agents motion for judgment on the pleadings.

  • Good v. Frankie & Eddies Hanover Inn, LLP

    Publication Date: 2017-10-10
    Practice Area: Civil Appeals | Insurance Law
    Industry: Hospitality and Lodging | Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Musmanno
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1539

    Trial court did not err in applying lower insurance policy limit under each occurrence limit, though not referenced by the policy, where the only reasonable interpretation was for each occurrence to mean the lower each common cause limit referenced in the policy. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo

    Publication Date: 2017-10-10
    Practice Area: Insurance Law | Motor Vehicle Torts
    Industry: Insurance
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Dubow
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:
    Case Number: 17-1440

    Trial court correctly found that insurer owed no duty to defend car driver because automobile insurance policy contained an unlisted resident driver exclusion and driver was policyholders live-in girlfriend, was not related to him.