Legal Opinion

Williams v. Geico Government Employees Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 18, 2009No. 147 WAL 2009PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

2Per curiam

AND NOW, this 18th day of November, 2009, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether, under the MVFRL and our decision in Burstein v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 570 Pa. 177, 809 A.2d 204 (2002), the “regular-use” exclusion to underinsured motorist coverage in an automobile insurance policy is valid where the insured is a police officer, who has sustained bodily injury in the course of performing his duties while driving a police vehicle, for which vehicle he could not have obtained underinsured motorist coverage.

3Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

4Cited by6 opinions

  1. Williams v. Geico Government Employees InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  2. Dixon v. GEICOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Commonwealth v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Dixon v. GEICOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  5. Dixon v. GEICOSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

1 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