Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cunningham v. Insurance Co. of North America

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 14, 1987No. 52 Middle District Appeal Docket, 1986Published

1DissentLarsen, Justice

I dissent.

Appellant, Insurance Company of North America (INA), framed the issue it presented to this Court as follows:

Did the filing of a class action over which no court had jurisdiction because the named plaintiffs lacked standing to sue nevertheless toll the statute of limitations for claims filed after the statute otherwise would have run?

The thrust of appellant’s argument is that lack of standing in a class action proceeding goes to the essence of a court’s jurisdiction and that lack of standing renders a class action a nullity from the outset. This is not the law of this Commonwealth.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Flast v. CohenSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. American Pipe & Construction Co. v. UtahSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  3. Bell v. Beneficial Consumer Discount Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  4. Freeze v. Donegal Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Antanovich v. Allstate InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

12 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