Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo
187 A.3d 204
Opinion
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
Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo, 187 A.3d 204 (Pa. 2018).
187 A.3d 204 (Safe Auto Ins. Co. v. Oriental-Guillermo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2019