Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Co. v. Black

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 21, 2007No. 109 MAP 2005Published

1DissentChief Justice Cappy

The majority concludes that there is no public policy in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1701 et seq., that is offended by application of the set-off provision in the automobile insurance policy (“Policy”) that Appellant Penn National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Penn National”) issued, and that the cost containment objective of the statute is reason enough to allow the set-off’s enforcement. I disagree, and therefore, respectfully dissent.

This Court has articulated a test for determining whether an insurance contract term is unenforceable because…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Eichelman v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  3. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Allwein v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  5. North River Insurance Company v. E. James Tabor, Administrator for the Estate of Todd TaborCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1991

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