Wolfe, Pet v. Ross v. State Farm

125 A.3d 408, 633 Pa. 414, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2572, 2015 WL 6828692
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 4, 2015·No. 221 WAL 2015 (Granted)·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

0RDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether a clause in a homeowner’s insurance policy, excluding coverage for liability for bodily injury “arising out of the ownership, maintenance [or] use ... of a motor vehicle owned or operated by ... any insured” is ambiguous where the homeowner’s liability is based solely upon his negligence in supplying alcohol to an underage person, and no insured committed any tortious act related to any vehicle.
(2) Whether the independent concurrent cause rule should be adopted as the law of Pennsylvania.

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

Wolfe, Pet v. Ross v. State Farm, 125 A.3d 408, 633 Pa. 414, 2015 Pa. LEXIS 2572, 2015 WL 6828692 (Pa. 2015).

125 A.3d 408 (Wolfe, Pet v. Ross v. State Farm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Epps v. Farmers Ins. Exch.
434 P.3d 496 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2018)
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Moore
175 A.3d 999 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Herr-Voss Stamco, Inc. v. Bauer
130 A.3d 1285 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)