Legal Opinion

Mutual Benefit Insurance v. Haver

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 5, 1999No. 21 W.D. Appeal Docket 1998PublishedCited by 173 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

We granted allocatur to address the issue of whether an insurance carrier has a duty to defend and possibly indemnify an insured pharmacist against a claim that is based upon his distribution of controlled substances, when the insurance poli*537cy explicitly excludes coverage for bodily injuries which are a consequence of “knowing endangerment” by the pharmacist. We hold that the carrier has neither a duty to defend nor a duty to indemnify.

On December 2, 1993, John and Candace Macko, Appellees, filed a complaint against Joseph B. Haver, who is also an Appellee, seeking…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
  4. Hodgson v. BigelowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
  5. Scopel v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

3Cited by173 opinions

  1. Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner US, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  2. Jeffrey J. Sikirica, Esq., as Trustee of Pittsburgh Beauty Academy, Inc. v. Nationwide Insurance Company Jeffrey J. SikiricaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
  3. Donegal Mutual Insurance v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Estate of MehlmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
  5. Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

168 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API