Legal Opinion

Gilderman v. State Farm Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 21, 1994PublishedCited by 45 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HESTER, Judge.

The issue presented herein is whether an insurer, which has agreed to pay repair or replacement costs less depreciation in advance of actual repair or replacement of a covered loss, may automatically withhold both depreciation and a flat twenty percent representing contractor overhead and profit from its advance payment. We conclude that it may not and reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer in this action. 1 We remand for further proceedings.

Alex and Janet Gilderman instituted this class action on behalf of themselves and other insureds suffering a covered…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Gray v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Cowden v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Fedas v. Insurance Co. of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  4. Romano v. Nationwide Mutual Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Dercoli v. Pennsylvania National Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

3Cited by45 opinions

  1. Reliance Insurance v. MoessnerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
  2. Mills v. Foremost InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2008
  3. Mee v. Safeco Insurance Company of AmericaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  4. In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1997
  5. Kane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

40 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