Legal Opinion
Rump v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 2, 1998No. 0011 E.D. Appeal Docket 1997PublishedCited by 27 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CASTILLE, Justice.
The sole issue on appeal is whether a person who has selected the “limited tort” option for his automobile insurance policy pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) 1 is precluded from recovering noneconomic damages (i.e., pain and suffering) under the uninsured motorist provisions of his insurance policy where the accident was caused by an uninsured motorist whose vehicle was registered in a state other than Pennsylvania. Because we find that the MVFRL precludes such, a recovery, we affirm the order of the Superior Court.
The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Terminato v. Pennsylvania National InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Philadelphia Suburban Corp. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
3Cited by27 opinions
- Eichelman v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Lewis v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Lewis v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
- Tagliati v. Nationwide InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.