Search for: "State v. Stack" Results 21 - 40 of 1,011
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 May 2010, 5:35 am by Daniel E. Cummins
State Farm, 895 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2006), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recognized another form of stacking which came to be known as inter-policy stacking. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:13 am
Determining eligibility for an accidental disability retirement allowanceMatter of McCabe v Hevesi, 38 A.D.3d 1035Matter of Wise v New York State Comptroller, 38 A.D.3d 1032Matter of Stack v Board of Trustees of the N. [read post]
24 Nov 2011, 7:51 am by Stephanie Smith, Arden Chambers.
Applying Stack and Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, the judge at first instance accepted this contention, stating that he had to consider what was just and fair between the parties having regard to the whole course of dealing between them.  [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
  The court found that the waiver of stacking utilized by State Farm only served to waive intra-policy stacking and not inter-policy stacking, as was at issue in this case involving separately issued insurance policies to different named insureds.The Court also held that, even though the policy at issue provided for unstacked coverage, the Gallagher v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 5:33 am by Daniel E. Cummins
State Farm, No. 408-2008 (Venango Co. 2010, Boyer, J.), an Opinion that served to clarify certain issues involving inter-policy stacking in UIM cases. [read post]
9 Aug 2012, 2:18 pm by Eric Tausend
At long last, the Supreme Court of California issued its opinion in State of California v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 10:19 am by Daniel E. Cummins
State Farm, 2010 WL 1778629 (Venango Co. 2010 Boyer, J.) in which the trial court clarified certain issues involving inter-policy stacking in UIM cases. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 4:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins, Esq.
State Farm line of cases under which the Household Exclusion could carry the day in support of a denial of coverage.Judg Norton noted that Craley v. [read post]