Legal Opinion

Lesoon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 28, 2006No. 1647 WDA 2004, 1787 WDA 2004PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY BOWES, J.:

¶ 1 Edmond and Kathy Lesoon appeal from the judgment entered on the nonjury verdict after the trial court found that they did not sustain actual damages as a result of the deceptive sales practices of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Met-Life”). MetLife has filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court’s award of nominal damages and the court’s determination that the action was not time-barred. Upon review, we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1

1! 2 The record reveals that Mr. Lesoon purchased two life insurance…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Delahanty v. First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Dalrymple v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Thunberg v. StrauseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. DeArmitt v. New York Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Gutteridge v. J3 Energy Group, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  3. Boehm, R. v. Riversource Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  4. Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Egan v. USI Mid-Atlantic, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014

27 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