Legal Opinion

Custren v. Harleysville Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 5, 1990No. 1449PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

Harleysville Insurance Company appeals from the trial court’s order imposing sanctions for failure to settle pursuant to Philadelphia Local Rule 170.1 On appeal, Harleysville argues that Rule 170 is unconstitutional, does not apply to first-party suits, and does not apply to this case. *254After careful consideration of appellant’s arguments, we affirm the order of the trial court.

This case arises from a motor vehicle accident. Appellant refused to pay one of appellee’s medical bills, claiming that the treatment was not a necessary and reasonable expense. Appellee instituted the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Parker v. Children's Hospital of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Smith CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  3. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. v. BradleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Zauflik v. Pennsbury School DistrictCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Saastomoinen v. PaganoNew York Supreme Court · 2000

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

Powered by the Exa API