Legal Opinion

Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 5, 1984No. 487PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

OLSZEWSKI, Judge:

In this appeal we are called upon to determine whether the lower court erred in finding that the Philadelphia Electric Company’s (PECO’s) insurance claim was barred by its failure to properly notify its insurer, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (Aetna), of the accident within a reasonable time. 1 Since we have determined that Aetna was on notice of the accident shortly after its occurrence, we therefore reverse.

The rather long and complex factual background of the case reveals that in January of 1964, McCloskey & Corhpa-ny (McCloskey) entered into a contract with the…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Brakeman v. Potomac Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Meierdierck v. MILLERSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Moss v. Cincinnati InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1980
  4. Morris v. Bender (Et Al.)Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935
  5. Gregory Ex Rel. Cusimano v. Highway InsuranceAppellate Court of Illinois · 1960

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Widener University v. Fred S. James & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Casualty Insurance v. E.W. Corrigan Construction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1993
  3. Bolden v. Niagara Fire InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
  4. NVR, Inc. v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2019
  5. Compagnie Des Bauxites De Guinea v. Insurance Company Of North AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986

3 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