Legal Opinion

Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 29, 1999PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SCHILLER, J.:

¶ 1 Appellant, Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company, appeals from an order dated June 2, 1997, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. We affirm and hold that the “regularly used non-owned car” exclusion is void as against public policy under the facts of this case.

FACTS:

¶ 2 On September 4,1998, Appellees, Sid and Doreen Burstein, were returning from dinner and a movie when a speeding motorcyclist struck their automobile. The automobile, which was being driven by Mr. Burstein at the time, had been provided to Mrs. Burstein by her employer; Mrs.…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Muschany v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Paylor v. Hartford Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Eichelman v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  5. Mamlin v. GenoeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1940

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. ColbertSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Brink v. Erie Insurance GroupSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Richmond v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. GislerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

18 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