Legal Opinion · Dissent

Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 17, 2002No. 3893Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

The central public policy at issue in this appeal is expressly established by the General Assembly and embodied in the statutory requirement that companies providing motor vehicle insurance coverage in Pennsylvania must offer UM and UIM coverage to the insurance buying public. See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1781(a). Fundamental questions thus presented are: what precisely was the General Assembly’s conception of UM and UIM insurance when it first mandated such coverage; if it did not have a fixed understanding, to whom did it intend to delegate the determination of what must be offered; and have the…

2Cases cited81 opinions

  1. Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  4. Pegram v. HerdrichSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

76 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