Publications
Regular use exclusion inapplicable to preclude coverage where doing so would frustrate public policy.
The insured was in the rear of an ambulance, owned by her employer, at the time of an automobile accident.
Sinkhole loss covered under plain meaning of “structural damage.”
Structural damage resulting from sinkhole loss was covered under the plain meaning of “structural damage,” despite a potentially exclusionary definition under Fla. Stat. § 627.706(2)(k).
Where UM/UIM claim is severed from bad faith claim, discovery should remain separate.
The plaintiff’s claims for UIM benefits and bad faith were severed, and the latter held in abeyance, but the motion judge compelled contemporaneous discovery and rejected the insurer’s claim that this discovery would be prejudicial.
New York courts’ interpretation of “collapse” did not require property “actually fall completely.”
The policy provided coverage for collapse of a building or part of a building if the collapse was caused by, among other things, “hidden insect or vermin damage.” While the policy did not define “collapse,” courts have inte
Cause or source of water damage deemed irrelevant under water damage exclusion.
The insurer refused to pay for damages to the insured’s in-ground swimming pool, alleging that the damage was due to wear and tear to an underground pipe “which [exerted] pressure on [the] swimming pool.” The court found that cov
Coverage precluded because insured did not “reside” in home.
The insured was advised that to qualify for the owner-occupied homeowners insurance she wanted, she had to reside at the property.
Contractual basis for claim of attorney’s fees may be introduced for the first time post-judgment, regardless of its presentation prejudgment.
The appellant entered into a credit card account with CapitalOne Bank NA, which was subsequently sold to the appellee, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (“Portfolio”).
Law firm not liable for breach of contract because plaintiff caused law firm’s contract breach.
On December 5, 2013, the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a Memorandum Opinion, affirmed a trial judge’s order granting a defendant law firm judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a legal malpractice claim brought by the law firm’s for
Claims against the Police Chief for the alleged violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and under the state created danger theory were dismissed with prejudice.
The plaintiffs, the administrators of an estate, sued the Borough of Folcroft, its Police Chief and a police officer for the deaths of the decedents as a result of a high-speed police chase. The complaint alleged violations of 42 U.S.C.
Prisoner’s claims for inadequate medical care under the 8th Amendment fails as defendants did not act with a deliberate indifference to a serious medical need.
A Pennsylvania state prisoner filed suit under 42 U.S.C.