Bergman v. United Services Automobile Ass'n
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
KELLY, J.:
¶ 1 In this appeal we must determine whether expert testimony should be required in cases involving allegations of bad faith in the context of insurance practices. Essentially, Appellant, Herbert Bergman, requests that this Court adopt a per se rule requiring expert testimony in all bad faith actions by an insured against an insurer. For the following reasons, we hold that the admission or exclusion of expert testimony in actions on insurance policies for bad faith remains a matter within the sound discretion of the *1103trial court and will not be disturbed, absent an error of law or…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Hoy v. AngeloneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Atwater Creamery Co. v. Western National Mutual Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1985
- Dambacher by Dambacher v. MallisSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Hollock v. Erie Insurance ExchangeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- American Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. AllenSupreme Court of Colorado · 2004
- Bonenberger v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Zappile v. AMEX Assurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Terwilliger v. KitchenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.