Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rancosky v. Washington National Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 16, 2015No. 1282 WDA 2014Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING

OPINION BY JENKINS, J.:

I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Conseco1 on Martin’s claims. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the judgment on LeAnn’s claims and remand for a new trial on LeAnn’s claim for bad faith under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8371. In my view, LeAnn’s bad faith claim is time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for bad faith, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524.

The majority contends in footnote 30 of its opinion that Conseco waived the statute of limitations issue by failing to…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Fine v. CheccioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Crouse v. Cyclops IndustriesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Ash v. Continental InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  4. Adamski v. Allstate Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  5. Richmond v. McHaleSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012

9 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