Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo

187 A.3d 204

CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 4, 2018

DocketNo. 791 MAL 2017

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 A.3d 204 (Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo) 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

Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo, 187 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:

a. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the unlisted resident driver exclusion in a Personal Auto Policy is valid and enforceable and not violative of the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701, et. seq.?

b. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the unlisted resident driver exclusion in a Personal Auto Policy is valid and enforceable and not violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as embodied in § 1786 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786, which implicitly directs that all permissive users of an insured vehicle be insured under the owner's insurance policy?

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

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of June, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:

a. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the unlisted resident driver exclusion in a Personal Auto Policy is valid and enforceable and not violative of the terms and provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701, et. seq.?

b. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the unlisted resident driver exclusion in a Personal Auto Policy is valid and enforceable and not violative of the public policy of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as embodied in § 1786 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786, which implicitly directs that all permissive users of an insured vehicle be insured under the owner's insurance policy?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.3d 204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/safe-auto-ins-co-v-oriental-guillermo-pa-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack