Legal Opinion

Smith v. Hartford Insurance Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 27, 2004PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKlein, J.

¶ 1 This case comes to us on appeal from cross-motions for summary judgment. Appellant, Barbara Smith, claims the trial court erred in determining the waiver of uninsured/underinsured coverage forms supplied by her insurer, The Hartford Insurance Company, complied with the statutory requirements found in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701 et seq. The Hartford, appellee, claims the trial court erred when it found that Smith was entitled to a new waiver of uninsured/underin-sured coverage form when the Smiths significantly increased the liability coverage…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Insurance GroupSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Cebula v. Royal & SunAlliance InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 2001

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Sackett v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Allegheny County Sportsmen's League v. RendellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Shipp v. Phoenix Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  4. Blood v. Old Guard InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  5. Weilacher v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2013

23 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