Legal Opinion

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pro MacHine

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 17, 2007PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

HUDOCK, J.:

¶ 1 Paul Massey (Massey), a partner in Pro Machine (Pro Machine or the Partnership), appeals from an order granting summary judgment to Continental Casualty Company (Continental) in the latter’s declaratory judgment action. In this case of first impression, we are asked to determine whether Massey is entitled to under-insured motorist (UIM) benefits under a business automobile policy issued by Continental to Pro Machine. Upon careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

¶ 2 Pro Machine is a Pennsylvania partnership, registered as a fictitious name, under…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Westfield Insurance v. GalatisOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Mutual Benefit Insurance v. HaverSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Werner v. Plater-ZyberkSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Deyarmin v. Consolidated Rail Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  3. McCausland v. WagnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Commonwealth v. BushSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2017
  5. Cigna v. Exec. Risk Indemnity and Nutmeg Ins.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

35 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