Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bell v. Slezak

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 19, 2002No. 77 WAP 2001Published

1DissentJustice Saylor

I agree with the majority that both first- and third-party claims fall within the PPCIGA Act’s broad definition of “covered claim,” and I fully support its reasoning in this respect. My position is opposite the majority’s, however, as concerns the obligations of settling defendants in a tort action and PPCIGA’s surrogate responsibilities in relation to such settlements. Centrally, I believe that, in furtherance of the aim of ameliorating hardship to claimants and policyholders attributable to insurer insolvencies, the statutory scheme devised by the General Assembly expressly requires PPCIGA…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Pegram v. HerdrichSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  2. DeVane v. KennedyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Bethea v. ForbesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Folmar v. ShafferSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Taylor v. SolbergSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

7 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