Legal Opinion

Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. Greenfield

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 9, 2002PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKlein, J.

¶ 1 Appellant Minnesota Fire and Casualty Company (“Minnesota”), in this declaratory judgment action, appeals the trial court’s March 14, 2001, order declaring that Minnesota owed a duty to defend and potentially indemnify Greenfield. We reverse.

¶2 Michael Greenfield voluntarily and intentionally provided heroin, in a bag labeled “suicide”, to Angela Smith. Angela Smith voluntarily and intentionally used *624that heroin and died as a result. Angela Smith’s parents, Sharon L. Smith and Ar-lin C. Smith, individually and as administrators of the estate of Angela C. Smith (“Smith”), filed a wrongful…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mutual Benefit Insurance v. HaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Stidham v. Millvale Sportsmen's ClubSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Kraus v. TaylorSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Scopel v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Eisenman v. HORNBERGERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1970

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. GreenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. Commonwealth v. KakhankhamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Erie Insurance Exchange v. MuffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. American Rehabilitation & Physical Therapy, Inc. v. American Motorists InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. Titan Indemnity Co. v. CameronCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2003

14 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