Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
American & Foreign Insurance v. Jerry's Sport Center, Inc.green2 sentences2015It observes that, under Pennsylvania law, insurers are permitted and, indeed, encouraged to defend their insureds under reservations of rights to provide the insureds with a defense at the outset of the underlying tort litigation “if the factual allegations of the complaint on its face encompass an injury that is actually or potentially within the scope of the policy.” Insurer’s Brief at 35 (quoting Jerry’s Sport Center, 2 A.3d at 541 ). 2015It observes that, under Pennsylvania law, insurers are permitted and, indeed, encouraged to defend their insureds under reservations of rights to provide the insureds with a defense at the outset of the underlying tort litigation “if the factual allegations of the complaint on its face encompass an injury that is actually or potentially within the scope of the policy.” Insurer’s Brief at 35 (quoting Jerry’s Sport Center, 2 A.3d at 541). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 51-52 (citing Generette, 957 A.2d at 1189 ). 9 In addition, the Insureds claim that the exclusion violates Section 1738 of the MVFRL, i.e., the stacking provision. 2024Id. at 51-52 (citing Generette, 957 A.2d at 1189 ). 9 In addition, the Insureds claim that the exclusion violates Section 1738 of the MVFRL, i.e., the stacking provision. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rush, M. v. Erie Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2022Id. 2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Egger v. Gulf Insurance
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, if an insurer relies on a policy exclusion that is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, “it is to to be construed in favor of the insured in order not to defeat, without plain necessity, the claims to indemnity which it was the insured's object to obtain.” Egger, 864 A.2d at 1245 (quoting Peters, 213 A.2d at 218 ). - 15 - J-A12018-17 The language of the insurance policy under which the Insureds claim coverage states: A. COVERAGES 1. 2017Moreover, if an insurer relies on a policy exclusion that is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, “it is to to be construed in favor of the insured in order not to defeat, without plain necessity, the claims to indemnity which it was the insured's object to obtain.” Egger, 864 A.2d at 1245 (quoting Peters, 213 A.2d at 218 ). - 15 - J-A12018-17 The language of the insurance policy under which the Insureds claim coverage states: A. COVERAGES 1. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. v. World Mutual Health & Accident Insurance
green
2 sentences2017Moreover, if an insurer relies on a policy exclusion that is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, “it is to to be construed in favor of the insured in order not to defeat, without plain necessity, the claims to indemnity which it was the insured's object to obtain.” Egger, 864 A.2d at 1245 (quoting Peters, 213 A.2d at 218 ). - 15 - J-A12018-17 The language of the insurance policy under which the Insureds claim coverage states: A. COVERAGES 1. 2017Moreover, if an insurer relies on a policy exclusion that is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, “it is to to be construed in favor of the insured in order not to defeat, without plain necessity, the claims to indemnity which it was the insured's object to obtain.” Egger, 864 A.2d at 1245 (quoting Peters, 213 A.2d at 218 ). - 15 - J-A12018-17 The language of the insurance policy under which the Insureds claim coverage states: A. COVERAGES 1. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.