Legal Opinion

Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 18, 1982No. 274PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

Appellant contends that appellee, a self-insured, was required to provide uninsured motorist protection to its passengers, and thus, the lower court erred in sustaining appellee’s preliminary objections and dismissing appellant’s complaint for failing to state a cause of action. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the order of the lower court.

It is well-settled that

The standards for sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer are quite strict. A demurrer admits every well-pleaded material fact set forth in the pleadings to which it is addressed as well as all…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Daly v. HemphillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Gekas v. ShappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Consumers Education & Protective Ass'n v. NolanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  4. Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  5. Hillbrook Apartments, Inc. v. Nyce Crete Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1975

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Culver v. Port Allegany Reporter ArgusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Boozell v. Bollinger, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1983
  4. Broughal v. First Wachovia Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1992
  5. Ervin Industries Inc. v. MCP Facilities Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1987

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