Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore

189 A.3d 382

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJuly 10, 2018

Docket87 WAL 2018 (Granted)

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.3d 382 (Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore) 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

Erie Ins. Exch. v. Moore, 189 A.3d 382 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Does the Superior Court's ruling that shooting a person during a fight, in turn, during a planned murder-suicide, constituted an "occurrence" under a liability insurance policy conflict with Pennsylvania law as established by this Court?

2. Does the Superior Court's ruling conflict with its own decision in American National Property and Casualty Co. v. Hearn, 93 A.3d 880 (Pa.Super. 2014), and misconstrue the intentional acts exclusion of a liability insurance policy?

3. Does the Superior Court's ruling conflict with Pennsylvania public policy, as stated in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 555 Pa. 534 , 725 A.2d 743 , 747 (1999), that liability insurance does not cover damages caused as a result of evil or illegal conduct?

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

PER CURIAM .

AND NOW, this 10th day of July, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

1. Does the Superior Court's ruling that shooting a person during a fight, in turn, during a planned murder-suicide, constituted an "occurrence" under a liability insurance policy conflict with Pennsylvania law as established by this Court?

2. Does the Superior Court's ruling conflict with its own decision in American National Property and Casualty Co. v. Hearn, 93 A.3d 880 (Pa.Super. 2014), and misconstrue the intentional acts exclusion of a liability insurance policy?

3. Does the Superior Court's ruling conflict with Pennsylvania public policy, as stated in Mutual Benefit Ins. Co. v. Haver, 555 Pa. 534 , 725 A.2d 743 , 747 (1999), that liability insurance does not cover damages caused as a result of evil or illegal conduct?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.3d 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erie-ins-exch-v-moore-pa-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack