Berg, D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Berg, D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.

205 A.3d 318

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 29, 2019

Docket569 MAL 2018 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.3d 318 (Berg, D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berg, D. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 205 A.3d 318 (Pa. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 29 ^th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. [D]oes an appellate court abuse its discretion by reweighing and disregarding clear and convincing evidence introduced in the trial court upon which the trial court relied to enter a finding of insurance bad faith?

b. [D]id the Superior Court abuse its discretion by reweighing and disregarding clear and competent evidence upon which the trial court relied to support its finding of insurance bad faith [pursuant to the standard set forth in Rancosky v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 642 Pa. 153 , 170 A.3d 364 (2017)]?

c. Does an insurer that elects under an insurance contract to repair collision damage to a motor vehicle, rather than pay the insured the fair value of the loss directly, have a duty to return the motor vehicle to its insured in a safe and serviceable condition pursuant to national insurance standards, and pursuant to its duty of good faith and fair dealing?

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 29 ^th day of March, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

a. [D]oes an appellate court abuse its discretion by reweighing and disregarding clear and convincing evidence introduced in the trial court upon which the trial court relied to enter a finding of insurance bad faith?

b. [D]id the Superior Court abuse its discretion by reweighing and disregarding clear and competent evidence upon which the trial court relied to support its finding of insurance bad faith [pursuant to the standard set forth in Rancosky v. Washington Nat'l Ins. Co., 642 Pa. 153 , 170 A.3d 364 (2017)]?

c. Does an insurer that elects under an insurance contract to repair collision damage to a motor vehicle, rather than pay the insured the fair value of the loss directly, have a duty to return the motor vehicle to its insured in a safe and serviceable condition pursuant to national insurance standards, and pursuant to its duty of good faith and fair dealing?

Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.3d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berg-d-v-nationwide-mut-ins-co-pa-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack