Legal Opinion

Treu v. Harleysville Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 25, 1995PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

On this appeal, we are asked to determine whether the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, in relying upon Philadelphia Local Rule *212.2, erroneously imposed sanctions upon appellants. Because we have no record evidence that the trial court followed the procedures set forth in Rule *212.2, we reverse.

The facts can be summarized as follows: Joseph and Elena Treu (the Treus) purchased a homeowner’s insurance policy from Harleysville Insurance Company (Harleysville). In July 1992, the Treus submitted a claim to Harleysville for damage to their home caused by a storm. Thereafter, the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. YoungSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Wiegand v. WiegandSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. McCaffrey v. Pittsburgh Athletic Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  4. Commonwealth v. IngberSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  5. Hatalowich v. BednarskiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Stewart v. Owens-Corning FiberglasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Baker v. HornDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Washington v. SobinaDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Mancini v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Zeiter v. Christman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Berks County2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API