London v. Insurance Placement Facility
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partFord Elliott, Judge
I concur in the majority’s determination that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the Facility on the insureds’ bad faith claim. I must respectfully dissent, however, from the majority’s conclusion that the provisions of Pennsylvania’s standard fire insurance policy, 40 P.S. § 636, do not cover Fair Plan insureds because I am convinced beyond peradventure that my colleagues are mistaken.
As the majority correctly notes, the Pennsylvania Fair Plan Act “was enacted to make insurance coverage available to protect property for which basic property insurance was not…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Fedas v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
- Grom v. BurgoonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
- Gilderman v. State Farm InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Patriotic Order Sons of America Hall Ass'n v. Hartford Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.