Legal Opinion
Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Gardner
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Huntingdon County
Decided January 19, 2006No. 05-51PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KURTZ, J,
In this insurance coverage dispute, plaintiffs (Nationwide) have moved for summary judgment.1 The motion is appropriate since “[t]he proper construction of an insurance policy is a matter of law that a court may resolve pursuant to a motion for summary judgment.” Harstead v. Diamond State Insurance Company, 555 Pa. 159, 162-63,723 A.2d 179, 180 (1999). The facts that are the backdrop for this case can be succinctly summarized.
BACKGROUND
On July 25,2004,12-year-old Corey Lee Secrest was riding as a passenger on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) operated by 13-year-old Matthew Gardner.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
- Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Steuart v. McChesneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
- Erie Insurance Exchange v. Transamerica InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Royal Indemnity Co. v. KingDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2007
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance v. JonesDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2010
- O'Brien v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2015
- MAPFRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ForteDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2022
- O'Brien, W. v. Ohio Casualty Insurance CompanySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016