Legal Opinion
Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided August 22, 1995PublishedCited by 165 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
CAPPY * , Justice.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the 1990 amendments (Act 6) 1 to the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 2 which in pertinent part renders unin sured and underinsured coverage optional, effectively eliminates the obligation of the Assigned Claims Plan, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1751-1757, to pay benefits to persons otherwise eligible who are injured while driving or occupying an uninsured vehicle. For the following reasons, we find that the Assigned Claims Plan is required to provide such benefits, and accordingly reverse the order of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bata v. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of Phila.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
- Coretsky v. Board of CommissionersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
- Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. EnglishSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Rosado v. Constitution State Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Zeigler v. Constitution State Service Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
3Cited by165 opinions
- Hannaberry HVAC v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Walker v. ElebySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- In Re Canvass of Absentee Ballots of Nov. 4, 2003 General ElectionSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
- Chanceford Aviation Properties, L.L.P. v. Chanceford Township Board of SupervisorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. William Cosenza Angelina C. Cosenza, H/w Patsy Dezii William Cosenza Angelina C. Cosenza, Patsy DeziiCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
160 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.