Mutual Benefit Insurance v. Haver
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- General Accident Insurance Co. of America v. AllenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Hodgson v. BigelowSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1939
- Scopel v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
3Cited by173 opinions
- Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvaerner US, Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- 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
- Donegal Mutual Insurance v. BaumhammersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Estate of MehlmanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
168 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.