green
Positive treatment
Hot · 29 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 7×
86.1 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2019–2021 ·
…t is not the proper function of this court to weigh competing public policy interests; rather that task is best suited for the legislature.
at p. 1204
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rush, M. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Aplt.
(6×)
also: Cited as authority (quoted), Cited as authority (rule)
we ruled in burstein that the express language of the mvfrl does not preclude the regular-use exclusion ... . e affirm the decision in burstein
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
PennDOT, Bur of Driver Lic, Aplt. v. Middaugh, S.
t is not the proper function of this court to weigh competing public policy interests; rather that task is best suited for the legislature.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In Re: ZHB of Cheltenham Twp 12-16-15 Decision
t is not the proper function of this court to weigh competing public policy interests; rather that task is best suited for the legislature.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Safe Auto Ins. v. Oriental-Guillermo, R.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
i join my colleagues in calling for advocates and the judiciary to cease their continued reliance on the unthinking perpetuation of the long-ameliorated concern for cost containment
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Safe Auto Insurance Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
i join my colleagues in calling for advocates and the judiciary to cease their continued reliance on the unthinking perpetuation of the long-ameliorated concern for cost containment
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In Re: ZHB of Cheltenham Twp 12-16-15 Decision
t is not the proper function of this court to weigh competing public policy interests; rather that task is best suited for the legislature.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Stockdale v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
a majority of this court held that the mvfrl's stacking provisions did not preclude application of the household exclusion.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
WINSLOW v. EXTRA STORAGE SPACE
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011) (quoting Eichelman v. Nationwide Ins.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gerhardt v. MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1204 (Pa. 2011), the Court finds that Plaintiff’s arguments “do not carry the heavy burden to void an unambiguous exclusion on public policy grounds, particularly when that exclusion has previously been upheld in the employment context,” Shepherd v. Talotta, 535 F. Supp. 3d 341 , 351 (E.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cynthia Eberly v. LM General Insurance Co and Li
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1208 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Yap
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011)). | An exculpatory contract is void as against public policy in Pennsylvania if it | immunizes a party from liability for their grossly negligent conduct, Feleccia v. Lackawanna Coll., 215 A.3d 3 , 20 (Pa. 2019), reckless conduct, Tayar, 47 A.3d | 13 | at 1203, or “where it immunizes a party from the consequences of violating a | statute or regulation intended to preserve health or safety[,]” Degliomini, 253 | A.3d at 239.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MID-CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY v. WERLEY
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1211 (Pa. 2011) (Todd, J., concurring) (explaining that “[t]he [MVFRL] expressly sets forth a remedial public policy to promote the recovery of damages for innocent victims of accidents by mandating that insurers offer [UM and UIM] protection to insureds” (citing 75 Pa. C.S. § 1731(a)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gittelmacher v. Travelers PropertyCasualty Insurance Company
Co,, 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Naomi Club, Inc. & Pocono Pines Comm. Assoc., Inc. v. E. Rosado & A. Quinones
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones, J. v. Erie Insurance
(15×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1199 (Pa. 2011), a case addressing “whether the regular-use exclusion, as applied to a state trooper, is void as against a public policy that favors protecting first responders.” Our Supreme Court, after conducting a public policy analysis, concluded that the insured had failed to meet the high burden of establishing that the regular use exclusion violated the public policy supporting the MVFRL.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Meyers v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011). “[A] challenger who asserts that clear and unambiguous contract provisions . . . are void as against public policy carries a heavy burden of proof.” Sayles v. Allstate Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rush, M. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1199 (Pa. 2011), a case addressing “whether the regular-use exclusion, as applied to a state trooper, is void as against a public policy that favors protecting first responders.” Our Supreme Court, after conducting a public policy analysis, concluded that the insured had failed to meet the high burden of establishing that the regular use exclusion violated the public policy supporting the MVFRL.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
EBERLY, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS OF THE ESTATE OF BRYAN L. EBERLY v. LM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Co. of Am. 3 As explained infra, in Williams, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that (1) public policy did not preclude the use of the regular use exclusion, and (2) the regular use exclusion did not violate the MVFRL. 32 A.3d at 1206, 1207, 1209 . v. Fong, Civ.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
CAMPBELL v. NORTHLAND INSURANCE COMPANY
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1208-1209.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Degliomini, A., et ux., Aplts. v. ESM - 5 EAP 2020
(2×)
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011), sufficiently justifies invalidating the contract, and this is not the case when a policy is merely consistent with one of several competing goals of a statute, 7 See Ayala v. Philadelphia Bd. of Pub.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
SHEPHERD v. TALOTTA
(16×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Such “determination of public policy must be based on the law, not simply on general considerations of supposed public interest.” Id. (citing Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195, 1206 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
NATIONWIDE AFFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA v. FONG
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1209 (Pa. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
Geico denied coverage based on a “regular-use” exclusion in the policy, which provided that insurance coverage did not apply when “using a motor vehicle furnished for the regular use of you . . . which is not insured under this policy.” Williams, 32 A.3d at 1197 (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Feleccia v. Lackawanna College, Aplts
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195, 1210 (Pa. 2011) (Saylor, J., concurring); id. at 1210 (Baer, J., concurring); id. at 1211 (Todd, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallagher, B., Aplt. v. Geico Indemnity
Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195, 1208 (Pa. 2011) (“A majority of this Court [in Baker] held that the MVFRL’s stacking provisions did not preclude application of the household exclusion.” (emphasis added)). 4 The Majority also claims that Gallagher is being deprived of coverage for which he paid.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vinson, D. v. Fitness & Sports Clubs, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011) (citation omitted). “[P]ublic policy is to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interest.” Id.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Duncan v. Omni Insurance Co
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1204 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Steadfast Insurance Co. v. Berkley National Insurance Co.
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1199-200 (2011) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Toro, C. v. Fitness International, LLC
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Duncan v. Omni Insurance Co.
(6×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1203 (2011); see also Progressive N. Ins.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Commonwealth
Williams v. GEICO, 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1208 (2011); In re Burtt’s Estate, 353 Pa. 217 , 44 A.2d 670, 677 (1945) (“A statutory construction, once made and followed, should never be altered upon the changed views of new personnel of the court.”); Commonwealth v. Fields, 107 A.3d 738, 741 (Pa.2014) (“[T]he question of whether a prior exercise in statutory construction .should be overruled is a sensitive one that should only be undertaken when reasonably necessary.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Byoung Suk an v. Victoria Fire & Casualty Co.
(2×)
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1199-1200 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arlene Grudkowski v. Foremost Insurance Co
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1207-08 (2011) (an exclusion for a regularly used, *169 non-owned vehicle “is neither an implicit waiver of coverage nor an improper limitation on the statutorily mandated coverage.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Co.
(2×)
Co., 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1211 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hodgkiss-Warrick
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Since Burstein , Pennsylvania’s high Court has reiterated on at least two occasions that Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1701 et seq., at least as amended as of 2011, did not invalidate, with respect to the MVFRL’s underinsurance provisions, “ ‘long-standing [insurance] policy exclusions (including regularly-used non-owned car, household, and territorial exclusions) rooted in ensuring the collection of reasonable premiums (with reasonableness being monitored by the Insurance Department).’ ” Williams v. GEICO, 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hand v. City of Philadelphia
As in the case before us, the policy at issue in Williams did not define the term “regular use.” Nevertheless, the Court determined that it was “unambiguous.” Id. at 1206.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Herd Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
(3×)
Co., 613 Pa. 113, 136-37 , 32 A.3d 1195, 1210 (2011) (Saylor, J., concurring); id. at 136-39 , 32 A.3d at 1210-11 (Baer, J., concurring); id. at 141-42 , 32 A.3d at 1213 (Todd, J., concurring, joined by McCaffery, J.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adamitis v. Erie Insurance Exchange
(2×)
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tayar v. Camelback Ski Corp.
Id. at 1200 (internal quotation marks omitted; alterations original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vino 100, LLC v. Smoke On Water, LLC
Co., 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa.2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Degliomini, A., et ux., Aplts. v. ESM - 5 EAP 2020
See Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195, 1200 (Pa. 2011) (holding that out of respect for the parties’ freedom of contract, this Court has expressed great reluctance to disrupt an otherwise valid agreement on public policy grounds).
cited
Cited "see"
Rawl, M. v. Geico Indemnity Company
See Williams v. GEICO, 32 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2011). -7- J-A05027-20 In granting summary judgment in favor of GEICO, the trial court found the facts in Brink v. Erie Ins.
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Orie
See Commonwealth v. Orie, 33 A.3d 17 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 112 , 32 A.3d 1195 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities
(2×)
See id. at 1222-24 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eckert, L. v. Unitrin Auto Home Ins. Co.
See, e.g., Williams, supra (holding that a police officer injured while in the scope of his employment was precluded from recovering underinsured motorist benefits under his personal auto policy based on the “regular use” exclusion); Adamitis v. Erie Ins.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rarick v. Federated Serv. Ins. Co.
However, the concern of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court seems to be the abuse of the cost-containment objective by insurers as a justification for "restricting coverage." See id. at 24 (citing Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities , 613 Pa. 143 , 32 A.3d 1213 , 1222 (2011) ); see also Williams v. GEICO , 613 Pa. 113 , 32 A.3d 1195 , 1210-11 (2011) (Baer, J. concurring) (discussing the high revenues of insurance companies and their increased discretionary spending on activities unrelated to providing coverage).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Jane C. ORIE
v.
Jane C. ORIE
Consideration, Matter, Melvin.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (2) · E.D. Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Motion for Stay of Retrial Pending Disposition of Allocatur Petition, filed in the above matter, are each hereby DENIED.
Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.