Legal Opinion

Keystone Spray Equipment, Inc. v. Regis Insurance Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 16, 2001PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MONTEMURO, J.:

¶ 1 Regis Insurance Company appeals from a declaratory judgment entered in the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court finding that Regis owed contractual duties to defend and indemnify its insured, Keystone Spray Equipment Company. The trial court so found despite provisions in the insurance policy excluding “products hazards” and “completed operations hazards” from coverage.

¶ 2 On April 27,1989, the parties executed an insurance contract which provided that Keystone would pay a $6,750 annual premium, in return for which Regis would provide $300,000 of coverage per occurrence…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Gene's Restaurant, Inc. v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Harford Mutual Insurance v. MoorheadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Gruenwald v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Eastcoast Equipment Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  5. Friestad v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Bombar v. West American Insurance Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Weavertown Transport Leasing, Inc. v. MoranSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Utica Mutual Ins. Co.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2002
  4. Robson v. EMC Insurance CompaniesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Unionamerica Ins. Co., Ltd. v. JB JOHNSONSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

10 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