Legal Opinion
St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance v. 1401 Dixon's, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 9, 1984No. Civ. A. 83-3410PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
GILES, District Judge.
St. Paul Surplus Lines Insurance Company, (“St. Paul”), seeks a declaratory judgment to the effect that it need not defend or indemnify its insured, 1401 Dixon’s, Inc., (“Dixon’s”), in a personal injury action pending in state court. St. Paul asserts that exclusions in the policy of insurance, particularly an assault and battery exclusion, relieve it of its duty to defend. In opposition, Dixon’s and Arlene Dean Bay-lock (“Baylock”) contend that the exclusions are neither factually applicable nor legally effective. Before the court is St. Paul’s motion for…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- Cadwallader v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
- Wilson v. Maryland Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Hionis v. Northern Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
- Casper v. American Guarantee & Liability InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962
3Cited by30 opinions
- D'Auria v. Zurich InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Century Transit Systems, Inc. v. American Empire Surplus Lines InsuranceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Essex Insurance Co. v. Fieldhouse, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1993
- United National Insurance Company v. Entertainment Group, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1991
- Winnacunnet Cooperative School District v. National Union Fire Ins.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1996
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.