Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde
289 A.2d 131, 220 Pa. Super. 414, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1923
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 24, 1972
DocketAppeals, Nos. 391 and 392
StatusPublished
This text of 289 A.2d 131 (Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde, 289 A.2d 131, 220 Pa. Super. 414, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1923 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).
Opinion
Opinion by
This appeal presents the same question which was decided by our Court in Szarmack v. Welch, 220 Pa. Superior Ct. 407, 289 A. 2d 149 (1972). For the reasons given in Szarmack, we hold that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4007(a) requires the disclosure of the existence and policy limits of liability insurance coverage.
The order of the court below is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Szarmack v. Welch
289 A.2d 149 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
289 A.2d 131, 220 Pa. Super. 414, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballariel-v-hoagerhyde-pasuperct-1972.