Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde

289 A.2d 131, 220 Pa. Super. 414, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1923
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided March 24, 1972·No. Appeals, Nos. 391 and 392·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

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

Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde, 289 A.2d 131, 220 Pa. Super. 414, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1923 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

289 A.2d 131 (Ballariel v. Hoagerhyde) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Szarmack v. Welch
289 A.2d 149 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)