Legal Opinion · Dissent

Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance v. Sartno

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 12, 2005Published

1Dissent

JOHNSON, J.,

Dissenting.:

¶ 1 The Majority concludes that the language “carry people or property for a fee” unambiguously operates to exclude coverage whenever an insured driver uses his or her vehicle to transport people or property in the scope of his or her employment. In so doing, the Majority’s analysis fails to address the critical issue: the policy language. Instead, the Majority focuses on whether a delivery fee is truly a relevant factor, Op. at 89, and the ability of insurance companies to draft exclusions that insulate them from liability, Op. at 90. After examining the plain and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Madison Construction Co. v. Harleysville Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  2. Brosovic v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. RPM Pizza, Inc. v. Automotive Cas. Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1992
  4. Neuhard v. Travelers InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lightning Rod Mutual InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1997

8 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