Legal Opinion

Schuylkill Products, Inc. v. H. Rupert & Sons, Inc.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 24, 1982No. 2570PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WIEAND, Judge:

May a materialman maintain a direct action against a reinsurer who has contracted with the surety on a contractor’s bond to insure any loss which the surety may be called upon to pay? The trial court held that such an action could not be maintained and sustained preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the materialman’s second amended complaint. We affirm.

H. Rupert & Sons, Inc., (Rupert) entered a written contract to perform work for the Bloomsburg Sewer Authority. Schuylkill Products, Inc., the appellant herein, was a materialman who supplied sewer pipe to Rupert.…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  2. Morris & Co. v. Skandinavia InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. Northwest'n Nat. Bk. v. Com'nw'lth.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  4. Northwestern National Bank v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  5. Otto v. American Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Reid v. RuffinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Philmar Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. York Street Associates IISupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  3. Home for Crippled Children v. Prudential InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. In Re Chateaugay Corp.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1990
  5. Smith v. Exxon Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

8 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