Legal Opinion

Timbrook v. Foremost Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 10, 1984No. 1196PublishedCited by 51 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HESTER, Judge:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict and for judgment non obstante veredicto (hereinafter judgment n.o.v.). Appellee, administrator of the estate of David M. Timbrook, sought and recovered an award against appellant as the insurer of the deceased. Appellant argues on appeal that the lower court erred in not granting *387its motions for a directed verdict and judgment n.o.v. We agree and, therefore, we reverse.

The standard which we employ when reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict and a motion for judgment n.o.v. is the same. We will only…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Ass'n v. Aetna Casualty & Surety InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  2. Celley v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'nSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Adelman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. McDevitt v. Terminal Warehouse Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Thomas v. Allegheny & Eastern Coal Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

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

3Cited by51 opinions

  1. Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. WalshSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Walker v. Grand Central Sanitation, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
  3. Ferry v. FisherSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Berman v. Radnor Rolls, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Jones v. ConstantinoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

46 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