Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

31 A.3d 656, 612 Pa. 484, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2697

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 7, 2011·No. Nos. 17 WAL 2011 and 18 WAL 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court err (as identified in the dissenting opinion) in holding, in conflict with Allen v. M[e]llinger, that plaintiffs may recover delay damages based on the full amount of the jury verdict rather than on the legally recoverable molded verdict, which was reduced to reflect [485]*485the insurance policy limits that plaintiffs were permitted to receive?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court err (as identified in the dissenting opinion) in holding, in conflict with Allen v. M[e]llinger, that plaintiffs may recover delay damages based on the full amount of the jury verdict rather than on the legally recoverable molded verdict, which was reduced to reflect [485]*485the insurance policy limits that plaintiffs were permitted to receive?

Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance, 31 A.3d 656, 612 Pa. 484, 2011 Pa. LEXIS 2697 (Pa. 2011).

Pincite

31 A.3d 656 (Marlette v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related