Legal Opinion

Seay v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 24, 1988No. 01333PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CAVANAUGH, Judge:

This case is an appeal from an order confirming an Arbitration Award in favor of appellee, Andre Seay. Appellant, Prudential, raises three issues on appeal,

1) whether appellee’s claim is barred by the statute of limitations,

2) whether appellant should have been permitted to introduce into evidence a transcript of appellee’s deposition, and

3) whether the insurance policy under which appellee claimed uninsured motorist benefits required a setoff in the amount appellee recovered previously from another tortfeasor.

The facts which appellee presented at the arbitration hearing in…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Boyle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Bickford v. JosonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Causer v. MandarinoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Cerrato v. Holy Redeemer HospitalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Ackler v. Raymark Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Snyder v. CressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. DUNLAP BY HOFFMAN v. State Farm Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Clark v. State Farm Automobile InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  5. Polizos v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2001

22 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