7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1938–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scarpitti v. Weborggreen2 sentences2013Nor has she alleged that she was a beneficiary to the contract between Defendant and Moyer.” The Pennsylvania appellate court view of a third party beneficiary claim was noted in Scarpitti v. Weborg, 609 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1992) at 150-151: “Accordingly, we hold that a party becomes a third party beneficiary only where both parties to the contract express an intention to benefit the third party in the contract itself,...unless, the circumstances are so compelling that recognition of the beneficiary’s right is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties, and the performance satisfies an o 1995Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that unless the contracting parties expressed an intention in the contract to benefit the third party, a third party beneficiary claim may be asserted only if “the circumstances are so compelling that recognition of the beneficiary’s right is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties, and ... the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.” Scarpitti v. Weborg, 530 Pa. 366, 372-73 , 609 A.2d 147, 150-51 (1992). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Est. of Robert H. Agnew v. Ross, D.
green
1 sentence2020The SAC ____________________________________________ 3 The Supreme Court recently revisited the third party beneficiary doctrine in Estate of Agnew v. Ross, 152 A.3d 247 (Pa. 2017). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Burks v. Federal Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2013Nor has she alleged that she was a beneficiary to the contract between Defendant and Moyer.” The Pennsylvania appellate court view of a third party beneficiary claim was noted in Scarpitti v. Weborg, 609 A.2d 147 (Pa. 1992) at 150-151: “Accordingly, we hold that a party becomes a third party beneficiary only where both parties to the contract express an intention to benefit the third party in the contract itself,...unless, the circumstances are so compelling that recognition of the beneficiary’s right is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties, and the performance satisfies an o 2013The appellate court relied on Scarpitti v. Weborg, supra; Guy v. Liederbach, supra; and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §302, to conclude that where a purported contract does not expressly state that the third party is intended to be a beneficiary, the plaintiffs must show that both parties to the contract intended that plaintiffs be beneficiaries and that such intent was within the parties’ contemplation at the time the contract was formed. 883 A.2d at 1088 . (emphasis supplied) Plaintiff-Tamburro’s reliance on the letter of September 2, 2011 is misplaced. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Guy v. Liederbach
green
1 sentence2013The appellate court relied on Scarpitti v. Weborg, supra; Guy v. Liederbach, supra; and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts §302, to conclude that where a purported contract does not expressly state that the third party is intended to be a beneficiary, the plaintiffs must show that both parties to the contract intended that plaintiffs be beneficiaries and that such intent was within the parties’ contemplation at the time the contract was formed. 883 A.2d at 1088 . (emphasis supplied) Plaintiff-Tamburro’s reliance on the letter of September 2, 2011 is misplaced. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Manor Junior College v. Kaller's Inc.
green
2 sentences2006In Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa. Super 310 , 507 A.2d 1245 (1986). 2006In Manor Junior College v. Kaller’s Inc., 352 Pa. Super 310 , 507 A.2d 1245 (1986). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Allendale Mutual Insurance v. Crist
green
1 sentence2003More importantly, the reinsurance agreement had a third-party beneficiary clause that explicitly limited third-party beneficiaries to the "receiver, liquidator or statutory successor.” Id. at 931 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Antone v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1957This alternative remedy was applied in Antone v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 335 Pa. 134 , and Gross v. Kubel, 315 Pa. 396 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Gross v. Kubel
green
1 sentence1957This alternative remedy was applied in Antone v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 335 Pa. 134 , and Gross v. Kubel, 315 Pa. 396 . | 1 | 1957–1957 |
Brill v. Brill
green
1 sentence1938In Brill v. Brill, 282 Pa. 276 , it was decided that an illegitimate child has an interest in a bond given by the putative father to the mother, although not named as a party therein, and that he can sue and recover thereon under the third party beneficiary rule. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.