Everhart v. PMA Insurance Group

927 A.2d 205, 592 Pa. 618, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1328
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Everhart v. PMA Insurance Group. Read the opinion of the Court — 595 Pa. 172
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 26, 2007·No. No. 648 WAL 2006·Published

Opinion

[619]*619 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 26th day of June 2007, the Petition for Leave to File an Addendum to the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted. The issues as stated by Petitioners are:

(1) Whether the lower court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment, where the decedent was a “class one” insured for the purpose of stacking underinsured motorist benefits under the policy of insurance issued in the name of the corporation.
(2) Whether the Superior Court erred in holding that underinsured motorist benefits can not be stacked under a commercial fleet policy, which is inconsistent with and contrary to the [MVFRL] (75 Pa.C.S. § 1738).

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

Everhart v. PMA Insurance Group, 927 A.2d 205, 592 Pa. 618, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1328 (Pa. 2007).

927 A.2d 205 (Everhart v. PMA Insurance Group) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

§ 1738
Pennsylvania § 1738