Legal Opinion · Dissent

American Independent Insurance v. E.S. Ex Rel. Crespo

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 10, 2002Published

1DissentBrosky, J.

¶ 1 After careful review, I am compelled to dissent as I find the issues raised by Appellant to be interlocutory, not collateral, and therefore, I would quash this appeal.

¶ 2 The trial court ably set forth the facts of this case as follows:

This underlying action arose from a[n] automobile accident which occurred on January 6, 2000, at Second Street near Erie Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The automobile was owned by Ed[r]a Crespo, and was driven by the owner’s sixteen year old son, [E.S.]. Crespo’s automobile was insured by AIIC. [E.S.] was driving without a valid Pennsylvania driver’s…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Smitley v. Holiday Rambler Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. McGourty v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Watson v. City of PhiladelphiaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Gottschall v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

2 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