Legal Opinion

Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 6, 2010No. 123 MAP 2006PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER. 1

In this case, we consider the effect of the inclusion of a provision in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law’s (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701-1799.7, definition of “uninsured motor vehicle,” providing for notification of police and the insurer within thirty days of an accident caused by an uniden tified vehicle. Specifically, we examine the continued applicability of the long-standing precedent of this Court conditioning an insurer’s denial of benefits, due to the insured’s failure to provide notice, upon the insurance company’s ability to demonstrate prejudice.…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Vernon Township Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. ConnorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. FosterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Jones v. Unitrin Auto & Home InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. In Re Estate of SnyderSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2011
  3. Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  4. Pirillo v. VancoCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  5. Borough of Media v. County of DelawareCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

7 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