Legal Opinion

Hartleb v. Ohio Casualty Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 1, 1982No. 525, 526, and 552PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

POPOVICH, Judge:

This is a consolidated appeal which involves the question of whether proof of dependency is a prerequisite to recovery of work loss or survivors’ benefits under the No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. §§ 1009.101 et seq. (Supp.1980-81). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both plaintiffs-appellees on the work loss issue and in favor of the defendant-appellant on the survivors’ benefits issue. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The facts in the instant case were set forth by the trial court in the following…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance v. HeffnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Freeze v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Mattia v. Employers Mutual CompaniesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  4. Chesler v. Government Employees InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Midboe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Antanovich v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Smiley v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Capanna v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Fox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Wingeart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

13 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