Legal Opinion

Petika v. Transcontinental Insurance Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 16, 2004PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

GANTMAN, J.:

¶ 1 Appellants, Matthew Petika and his wife Penny Petika (“the Petikas”), ask us to determine whether the trial court erred in rendering a verdict in favor of Appellees, Transcontinental Insurance Company (“Transcontinental”) and Swank Associated Companies, Inc. (“Swank”), in a declaratory judgment action to recover underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits. Specifically, the Petikas challenge the trial court’s interpretation and application of the “orientation” element of the “occupancy test,” as promulgated in Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Contrisciane, 504 Pa. 328,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Utica Mutual Insurance v. ContriscianeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Erie Insurance Exchange v. MuffSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Curry v. Huron InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  4. Downing v. Harleysville InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Fisher v. Harleysville InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Amberleigh HUDSON v. GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., D/B/A GEICO General Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2017
  2. Lynn v. Westport InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
  3. Amberleigh HUDSON v. GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., D/B/A GEICO General Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2017
  4. BINOTTO v. GEICO ADVANTAGE INSURANCE COMPANYDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2024
  5. Julio Guerrero v. Agency Insurance Company of Maryland, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2026

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

Powered by the Exa API