Legal Opinion
Johnson v. Concord Mutual Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided January 19, 1973No. Appeal, No. 343PublishedCited by 64 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Me. Justice Robeets,
Following a collision with an uninsured motorist, appellee, Howard Johnson, instituted a proceeding in equity against Concord Mutual Insurance Company (Concord) and Temple Insurance Agency (Temple) seeking reformation of an insurance policy under which Johnson was the insured, Concord the insurer, and Temple, Concord’s agent. Appellee alleged that uninsured motorist coverage, as required by Act of August 14, 1963, P. L. 909, §1, 40 P.S. §2000, was not validly rejected and, therefore, was improperly excluded from the policy.
On September 13, 1966, Johnson was…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co. v. BlumlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Abate v. Pioneer Mutual Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Brown v. PittsburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
- Pattani v. Keystone InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Katz v. American Motorist InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1966
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by64 opinions
- Silver v. SlusherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Lewis v. School Dist. of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Salazar v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Nationwide Insurance Company v. Marian Resseguie Larry C. Resseguie, Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Resseguie, DeceasedCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- Sands v. Granite Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.