Justices to Eye Insurer Prejudice in Luzerne Case

, The Legal Intelligencer

   | 1 Comments

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case providing it a chance to determine what constitutes "actual prejudice" that would relieve an insurer of its duty to indemnify an insured.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to LexisAdvance®.

Continue to LexisAdvance®

Not a LexisAdvance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via LexisAdvance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Larry Hohol

    This case is but one of hundred if not thousands of insurance cases that had very, very questionable outcomes in Luzerne County. Dozens of Attorney's became suspect in the county when the FBI started to investigate Judge Conahan and Judge Ciavarella. The can of worms that would have been opened here IF the US Attorney started prosecuting would have gone very far up the political food chain. Instead, the Statute of Limitations has been conveniently allowed to expire. The powers that be appear to think none of us have noticed.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202578667518

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.