uninsured motorists clause in Pennsylvania

1974The court held: "Insofar as the clause restricts the insured's right to compromise and settle his claim against financially responsible motorists who might be liable to him, it is contrary to the purpose of the statute and against its policy." Id. at 207 .

1974The court held: “Insofar as the clause restricts the insured’s right to compromise and settle his claim against financially responsible motorists who might be liable to him, it is contrary to the purpose of the statute and against its policy.” Id. at 207 .

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1982Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); Harleysville Mutual Insurance Co. v. Medycki, supra 431 Pa. at 69 , 244 A.2d at 656 ; Henderson v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., supra; Hartford Insurance Group v. Kassler, 227 Pa.Super.Ct. 47 , 324 A.2d 521 (1974). 15 In Medycki , our Supreme Court stated: It is an oversimplification to assert that the denial of coverage by appellant (insurer) ipso facto removes the uninsured motorists clause from the policy and with it the arbitration provi

1978Co., 229 Pa. Superior Ct. 215 , 331 A. 2d 498, 501 (1974): “Thus, to the extent that it is possible, an uninsured motorists clause in an insurance contract must be interpreted to effect that legislative intent, and any conditions or restrictions in the policy in derogation of that end are void as against public policy.” Thus, in United Services Automobile Association Appeal, 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 508 , 323 A. 2d 737 (1974), the Supreme Court held a physical contact rule to be invalid as not within the intent of the legislature.

1978Co., 229 Pa. Superior Ct. 215 , 331 A. 2d 498, 501 (1974): “Thus, to the extent that it is possible, an uninsured motorists clause in an insurance contract must be interpreted to effect that legislative intent, and any conditions or restrictions in the policy in derogation of that end are void as against public policy.” Thus, in United Services Automobile Association Appeal, 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 508 , 323 A. 2d 737 (1974), the Supreme Court held a physical contact rule to be invalid as not within the intent of the legislature.