Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
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
- Daly v. HemphillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
- Gekas v. ShappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Consumers Education & Protective Ass'n v. NolanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- 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
- Modesta v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthoritySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Culver v. Port Allegany Reporter ArgusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
- Boozell v. Bollinger, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Mercer County1983
- Broughal v. First Wachovia Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1992
- Ervin Industries Inc. v. MCP Facilities Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County1987
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.