Legal Opinion
Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided July 17, 2002No. 3893PublishedCited by 123 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Chief Justice ZAPPALA.
We granted allocatur to determine whether the “regularly used, non-owned car” exclusion and its ensuing contractual restraint on underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage portability violate public policy. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the order of the Superior Court.
On September 4, 1993, Sid and Doreen Burstein were driving in Lower Southampton, Pennsylvania. A speeding motorcyclist struck their vehicle and injured both Mr. and Mrs. Burstein. Subsequently, the motorcyclist’s insurance policy surrendered the maximum amount payable under its liability limits,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Muschany v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Eichelman v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Hall v. Amica Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Borough of Pottstown v. Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by123 opinions
- Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 v. Westmoreland Intermediate Unit 7 Classroom Assistants Educational Support Personnel Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Meyer v. Cuna Mutual Insurance SocietyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. ColbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Craley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Liberty Mutl Ins Co v. James SweeneyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
118 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.