18 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1967–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wagner v. Erie Insurancegreen2 sentences2023Co., 801 A.2d 1226, 1231 (Pa. Super. 2002) (providing that the insurer has the burden to show that an asserted exclusion clearly and unambiguously prevents the coverage of a claim). 2022Co., 77 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that the insured has the initial burden of showing a claim falls within a policy’s coverage, but the burden then shifts to the insurer to prove the applicability of any exclusions); Wagner, 801 A.2d at 1231 (providing that the insurer must show that an asserted exclusion clearly and unambiguously prevents the coverage of a claim). | 3 | 3 |
Eichelberger v. Warnergreen2 sentences2025When a coverage clause is ambiguous, it is to be “interpreted broadly so as to afford the greatest possible protection to the insured.” Eichelberger v. Warner, 434 A.2d 747, 750 (Pa. Super. 1981). 2025When a coverage clause is ambiguous, it is to be “interpreted broadly so as to afford the greatest possible protection to the insured.” Eichelberger v. Warner, 434 A.2d 747, 750 (Pa. Super. 1981). | 2 | 2 |
McEwing v. Lititz Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2022Co., 77 A.3d 639 , 646 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that the insured has the initial burden of showing a claim falls within a policy’s coverage, but the burden then shifts to the insurer to prove the applicability of any exclusions); Wagner, 801 A.2d at 1231 (providing that the insurer must show that an asserted exclusion clearly and unambiguously prevents the coverage of a claim). 2022Co., 77 A.3d 639, 646 (Pa. Super. 2013) (stating that the insured has the initial burden of showing a claim falls within a policy’s coverage, but the burden then shifts to the insurer to prove the applicability of any exclusions); Wagner, 801 A.2d at 1231 (providing that the insurer must show that an asserted exclusion clearly and unambiguously prevents the coverage of a claim). | 2 | 2 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Partridgegreen2 sentences2015Id., 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d at 129 (emphasis added). 2015Id., 109 Cal.Rptr. 811 , 514 P.2d at 129 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2015The Arizona court opined that, rather than forcing this choice, the better solution “would permit the insurer to raise the coverage defense, and also permit an insured to protect himself from the risk of noncoverage or excess judgment, while at the same time protecting the insurer from unreasonable agreements between the claimant and the [J-86-2014] - 23 insured.” Id. at 252 . 2015The Arizona court opined that, rather than forcing this choice, the better solution “would permit the insurer to raise the coverage defense, and also permit an insured' to protect himself from the risk of noncoverage or excess judgment, while at the same time protecting the insurer from unreasonable agreements between the claimant and the insured.” Id. at 252 . | 1 | 3 |
Warner v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.green1 sentence2022See Allen, supra at 1093 (quoting Warner v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., 133 A.2d 231, 233 (Pa. 1957)) (“[I]t [i]s a necessary prerequisite to recovery under an insurance policy for the insured to show a claim within the coverage provided by the policy.”). | 1 | 1 |
General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. Allengreen1 sentence2022See Allen, supra at 1093 (quoting Warner v. Employers’ Liability Assurance Corp., 133 A.2d 231, 233 (Pa. 1957)) (“[I]t [i]s a necessary prerequisite to recovery under an insurance policy for the insured to show a claim within the coverage provided by the policy.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nordi v. Keystone Health Plan West Inc.green1 sentence2022Co., 695 A.2d 790 , 792–93 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Nordi v. Keystone Health Plan West, Inc., 989 A.2d 376 , 381–83 & n. 4 (Pa. Super. 2010) (addressing the bad faith claim on the merits despite the concession that the insured's coverage claim failed). | 1 | 1 |
Robert Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corporationgreen1 sentence2013See Zimmerman v. Norfolk Southern Corp., 706 F.3d 170 (3d Cir.2013). | 1 | 1 |
Burns Manufacturing Co., Inc. v. Boehmgreen2 sentences1989See, *597 e.g., Burns Manufacturing Co., 467 Pa. at 313, n. 3 , 356 A.2d at 766, n. 3 . 11 We are constrained, therefore, to remand this matter to the trial court so that the court may hear evidence, if any, of the relevant matters regarding the transaction as it relates to the coverage clause of the rental agreement. 1989See, *597 e.g., Burns Manufacturing Co., 467 Pa. at 313, n. 3 , 356 A.2d at 766, n. 3 . 11 We are constrained, therefore, to remand this matter to the trial court so that the court may hear evidence, if any, of the relevant matters regarding the transaction as it relates to the coverage clause of the rental agreement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McCabe v. Old Republic Insurance
green
1 sentence2024However, the Supreme - 12 - J-A19037-24 Court emphasized that the determining factor in the Goodville case was the context in which the phrase was employed, emphasizing that “[i]t does not follow therefrom, that every time the phrase is used in an insurance policy that an indefinite meaning must be ascribed thereto.” Id. at 224 , 228 A.2d 903 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Nealy v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence2022Co., 695 A.2d 790 , 792–93 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Nordi v. Keystone Health Plan West, Inc., 989 A.2d 376 , 381–83 & n. 4 (Pa. Super. 2010) (addressing the bad faith claim on the merits despite the concession that the insured's coverage claim failed). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. MacDonald
green
1 sentence2016Co. v. MacDonald, 850 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2004) to apply to premises "used in connection" with an "insured location" requires that a party show the insured regularly used the specific type of vehicle involved in the accident on the premises to trigger coverage, here the ATV involved in the accident. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Buss v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2008Jerry’s Sport explains that, among the other jurisdictions that have considered the issue, there is a split in the case law. ¶ 14 Royal contends that we should follow the decisions of the majority of jurisdictions, such as California in the seminal case of Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 , 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 (1997), 3 which have found a right of reimbursement based on the existence of an implied contract between the insurer and its insured created through a reservation of rights letter, in addition to unjust enrichment of the insured from the insurer’s coverage of defense 2008Jerry’s Sport explains that, among the other jurisdictions that have considered the issue, there is a split in the case law. ¶ 14 Royal contends that we should follow the decisions of the majority of jurisdictions, such as California in the seminal case of Buss v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 35 , 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 366 , 939 P.2d 766 (1997), 3 which have found a right of reimbursement based on the existence of an implied contract between the insurer and its insured created through a reservation of rights letter, in addition to unjust enrichment of the insured from the insurer’s coverage of defense | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Patton v. Patton
green
2 sentences1967The clause involved, when read in its entirety, is clear and definite, and, this being so, a construction may not be adopted which conflicts with the plain language employed: Patton v. Patton, 413 Pa. 566 , 198 A. 2d 578 (1964). *224 It is true that in Goodville, supra, we ruled that the phrase “arising out of” as used in a coverage clause (as opposed to the instant exclusionary clause situation) of the particular policy involved therein was vague and ambiguous. 1967The clause involved, when read in its entirety, is clear and definite, and, this being so, a construction may not be adopted which conflicts with the plain language employed: Patton v. Patton, 413 Pa. 566 , 198 A. 2d 578 (1964). *224 It is true that in Goodville, supra, we ruled that the phrase “arising out of” as used in a coverage clause (as opposed to the instant exclusionary clause situation) of the particular policy involved therein was vague and ambiguous. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.