Legal Opinion
Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided April 20, 1994No. 0049 M.D. Appeal Docket 1993PublishedCited by 162 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ZAPPALA, Justice.
This appeal presents a question of first impression relating to the enforceability of a “family car exclusion” which excludes a vehicle owned by or furnished or available for the regular use of the named insured or any family member from the definition of an underinsured motor vehicle. We hold that the “family car exclusion” is valid and enforceable under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq., under the facts of this case. The order of the Superior Court is hereby reversed, 421 Pa.Super. 641, 612 A.2d 539.
On November…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Utica Mutual Insurance v. ContriscianeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Mamlin v. GenoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- Myers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by162 opinions
- Eichelman v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
- Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. ColbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. VillicanaIllinois Supreme Court · 1998
- Craley v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
157 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.