Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bruce v. Pennsylvania National Insurance Companies

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 5, 1996Published

1DissentOlszewski, Judge

Since I believe that a genuine issue of material fact exists in this ease, I am compelled to dissent. Specifically, I find that appellant, Andrea Brack, has succeeded in establishing a prima facie claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. Accordingly, I would remand this case for trial.

In advancing her claim of fraudulent misrepresentation, appellant places significant reliance on the statements she made in her application to appellee, Pennsylvania National Insurance Companies (PNI), through its agent, the Pennsylvania Assigned Risk Plan. In this application, appellant provided notice to PNI…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Moser v. DeSettaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  2. Gwendolyn v. MooreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API