Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Falligan
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
TAMILIA, Judge:
These appeals are being considered together as they raise the issue of whether an insurance company designated to provide basic loss benefits to an uninsured victim under the No-Fault Act 1 is also required to provide uninsured motorist benefits. We hold that appellants, Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Keystone Insurance Company, are required to provide such coverage, and therefore, affirm the respective orders from which these appeals have been taken.
In the Prudential appeal, No. 03334 Philadelphia, 1982, claimant, Ishmael Falligan, a pedestrian, was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United Services Automobile Ass'n AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- National Grange Mutual Insurance v. KuhnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
- Dale Manufacturing Co. v. BressiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
- Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Tyler v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
- Jeffrey v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. CummingsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Hall v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Frazier v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.