Penn's Market I v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Penn's Market I v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance

934 A.2d 1148, 594 Pa. 32, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2081

DecidedOctober 2, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 934 A.2d 1148 (Penn's Market I v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance) 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

Penn's Market I v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance, 934 A.2d 1148, 594 Pa. 32, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2081 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court depart from established law and from accepted deci-sional procedures for an intermediate appellate court of review, and mistakenly resolve a question of state-wide importance when it misconstrued important legal principles and ignored critical facts which defined the claims made against respondents, and which, properly considered, establish that the claims against plaintiffs did not constitute claims for wrongful eviction?

(2) When a complaint against an insured does not plead facts which would support a claim that the insured had wrongfully evicted a tenant, but rather described actions legitimately taken by the insured in accordance with and enforcement of the parties’ lease, or at worst, attempted to assert a breach of contract claim based on a purported but ineffective oral amendment to the lease, does a trial court correctly hold that the complaint did not assert a “wrongful eviction” claim?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

(1) Did the Superior Court depart from established law and from accepted deci-sional procedures for an intermediate appellate court of review, and mistakenly resolve a question of state-wide importance when it misconstrued important legal principles and ignored critical facts which defined the claims made against respondents, and which, properly considered, establish that the claims against plaintiffs did not constitute claims for wrongful eviction?

(2) When a complaint against an insured does not plead facts which would support a claim that the insured had wrongfully evicted a tenant, but rather described actions legitimately taken by the insured in accordance with and enforcement of the parties’ lease, or at worst, attempted to assert a breach of contract claim based on a purported but ineffective oral amendment to the lease, does a trial court correctly hold that the complaint did not assert a “wrongful eviction” claim?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 A.2d 1148, 594 Pa. 32, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penns-market-i-v-harleysville-mutual-insurance-pa-2007.