purchase, george & murphey.
purchase, george & murphey.
Were you involved in a car accident on a road or highway in Pennsylvania? Or perhaps charged with a DUI in PA and now you’re looking for the best lawyer to handle your case? If so, check out our free ebooks below. They contain all the information you’ll need to get started on your case. And please feel free to contact us any time for a free consultation about your legal matter. Our team is available 24/7 to assist you. Fill out our convenient online contact form today or reach out to our office directly at 814-273-2010.
REMEMBER: Accessing our ebooks does not make you a client of Purchase, George & Murphey, P.C. These books are just a way to educate yourself about the challenges and difficulties you might face following a car accident or DUI in Pennsylvania, and how to make smart decisions as you look for solutions to the problems that these legal matters might create for you. There is no charge for these books, and if you decide to contact us your information will not be sold or given away to anyone.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that insurers may deny uninsured motorist benefits when insured fails to notify law enforcement of accident involving phantom vehicle within 30 days of accident in State Farm v. Foster, even without showing of prejudice.
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas issues opinion which correctly determines that insurance companies who wrongly decide not to pay medical bills for their insureds must reimburse the attorney fees incurred by an insured or provider who successfully challenges their refusal to pay medical benefits owed under the policy.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that 30-Day Phantom Vehicle Reporting Requirement of the MVFRL does not relieve insurance company of obligation to provide uninsured motorist coverage, absent proof of prejudice to the insurance carrier.
Prudential loses effort to deny underinsured motorist benefits to their own insured in case where their insured was operating a rental truck and Prudential argued that their insureds lose coverage when they get in a truck that weighs more than one ton.
In Dixon v. Geico, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recognized an important limit on the scope of the regularly used auto exclusion found in typical Pennsylvania insurance policies that provide uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage. In circumstances in which an employed mechanic was driving his employer’s vehicle for purposes of delivering it (either incidental to or following repair), the Court found that it would be possible for a jury to conclude that such vehicle was not a vehicle “furnished for the regular use” of the employee.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided to accept a case that may narrow the reach of the household exclusion in Underinsured Motorist and Uninsured Motorist car insurance policies. In GEICO v. Ayers, the Court will determine whether the household vehicle exclusion is enforceable in circumstances in which the same insurance company insures both vehicles. The case has the potential to limit the application of the Court’s previous ruling in Erie Insurance v. Baker to those circumstances in which different insurers write the policies at issue.
In Erie Insurance v. Baker, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court upheld the validity of the so-called “household exclusion” in the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage portion of a Pennsylvania auto insurance policy. The household exclusion applies to deny UM/UIM coverage to people who are injured while occupying another vehicle owned by the insured (or a resident relative) but that is not insured on the same policy. The decision in Erie v. Baker definitively resolves the question of whether the household exclusion is enforceable under circumstances where the vehicles involved are insured by different carriers. Still unresolved (but working its way through the appellate system) is the question of whether the household exclusion is enforceable when the UM/UIM coverage at issue is provided by the same insurer, albeit via different policies.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued an opinion in Sackett v. Nationwide Insurance (Sackett III) that summarizes this case’s lengthy appellate history and confirms the rules that now apply in order for an insurance company to deny its insured the benefit of “stacked” benefits under the underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist portions of the policy.
These materials were provided to participants at a seminar given by Eric Purchase on April 1, 1998. The seminar was directed at insurance professionals, including claims adjustors and defense lawyers. The materials were intended to update attendees on the state of the law relating to first party auto insurance benefits.
In Erie Insurance v. Conley, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied uninsured motorist coverage to a man injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of a co-worker. The Court reasoned that because the injured man was in the scope of his employment at the time of injury, Pennsylvania’s Worker’s Compensation Act made his co-worker immune from suit and therefore the immune co-worker did not qualify as a person from whom the injured plaintiff was “legally entitled to recover damages.”
In Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hymes, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County held that a motorcyclist injured when struck from the rear was not entitled to UIM benefits from his own auto insurance policy due to the household exclusion in his own auto policy.
A Purchase, George and Murphey, P.C. client recently won a substantial battle in a bad faith insurance case against ACIC for its handling of her Uninsured Motorist Claim. The court found ACIC in bad faith for misrepresenting UM policy limits; for refusing to arbitrate (despite policy language requiring arbitration); for misleading their insured about their intent to file an appeal of the arbitration award; for low balling; for delay; and for seeking release of bad faith claims as condition of payment of UIM benefits.
Library Documents:
2 Reasons Why You Need a Pennsylvania Insurance Claims Lawyer to Represent You
Erie County insurance claim lawyers can help you increase the amount of your accident insurance claim and reduce the stress caused by your insurance company. Call an experienced Pennsylvania insurance claims lawyer at Purchase, George and Murphey, P.C. at 814-273-2010 for more information. [...] Read More
Erie Lawyers Who Handle Insurance Claims: Colossus Report
A new report from the Consumer Federation of America provides convincing evidence that the models are a tool for denying people the benefits that they are otherwise owed. [...] Read More
Real Life Question-and-Answer Series: Driver Learns His Car Is Covered But He Is Not
REAL QUESTION FROM A REAL PERSON: I was in a car accident where the other driver was at fault [...] but now he’s coming after me for damages to his truck because he’s saying I was uninsured. what should I do and what are my options? ANSWER FROM Purchase, George & MURPHEY: [...] Read More
Real Life Question-and-Answer Series: Is a Fractured Nose a “Serious Injury” Under Pennsylvania Law?
In our “Real Life Question-and-Answer” Series, we present actual questions that have been posed by real people and the answers we’ve provided. In this case, a woman with limited tort suffered a broken nose when she was rear-ended at a STOP sign. She had questions about whether her injury was a serious injury as defined in Pennsylvania law. We offered answers. [...] Read More
Real Life Question-and-Answer Series: My Insurance Company Settled a Claim Against Me Even Though I Wanted to Fight! Can I Sue Them?
In our “Real Life Question and Answer” Series, we present actual questions that have been posed by real people and the answers we’ve provided. In this case, a woman is upset that her insurance carrier settled a claim against her. She wanted them to fight! She had questions. We offered answers. [...] Read More
Three Simple Steps to Protect Yourself If You Caused an Accident and Hurt Someone
We offer a lot of information for people who’ve been injured and who might have to sue to get compensation for their harm. Here, we offer information for people who caused the car accident and who are being sued. And we’ve got good news. [...] Read More
Although we take great pride in our excellent case results, our greatest satisfaction comes from the kind words shared by our clients. Read what others say about us here.
