Legal Opinion

Eichelman v. Nationwide Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1998No. 36 M.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 160 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

CASTILLE, Justice.

The sole issue on appeal is whether a person who has voluntarily elected to forego underinsured motorist coverage on his own vehicle is precluded from recovering underinsured motorist benefits from separate automobile insurance policies issued to family members with whom he resides as a result of a “household exclusion” clause excluding underinsured motorist coverage for bodily injury suffered while occupying a motor vehicle not insured for underinsured motorist coverage. Because we hold both that this “household exclusion” language precludes the recovery…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Mamlin v. GenoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
  3. Hall v. Amica Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Windrim v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Antanovich v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by160 opinions

  1. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Gallagher, B., Aplt. v. Geico IndemnitySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. ColbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Craley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

155 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