# London v. Insurance Placement Facility

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 10, 1997 · 703 A.2d 45

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4954942

## Case

- **Full name:** Khadija LONDON & Alikalie M. Sillah and Christina Walls, Ann Torregrussa, Harold Wilkinson, Rev. Walter Golden, Golden Gate Baptist Church and Kenneth & Julia Davenport, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania v. INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, (at 1285) Khadija LONDON & Alikalie M. Sillah and Christina Walls and Rev. Walter Golden, Golden Gate Baptist Church and Kenneth & Julia Davenport, in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, (at 1495) v. INSURANCE PLACEMENT FACILITY
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 10, 1997
- **Citations:** 703 A.2d 45
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Schiller
- **Judges:** Cavanaugh, Cirillo, Eakin, Elliott, Hudock, Johnson, Popovich, Saylor, Schiller
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4954942

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that disallowing depreciation deductions under an actual cash value policy in the event of a partial loss would “plac[e] Pennsylvania in a minority position among the states”

## Opinion text

SCHILLER, Judge,
concurring and dissenting:
I agree with the Majority Opinion that the Court of Common Pleas correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Insurance Placement Facility (“Facility”) on the question of bad faith. However, unlike the Majority, I would also affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the landowners on the breach of contract claim.
According to the argument advanced by the Facility, the insurable interest of properties ordinarily decline each year due to “depreciation” and its responsibility to pay for the repair to such properties should also decline. However, the Facility itself does not seem to have treated the insurable interest of these properties as in decline for purpose of charging premiums, because premium payments were not modified downward to reflect the alleged depreciated interest. 1 To my mind, this course of conduct by the Facility indicates either an intention to fully cover the properties up to the policy limits, or the collection of premiums in excess of the coverage it was actually providing: if the latter is true that fact should have been annually communicated to the insureds so that they could have adjusted their coverage. Moreover, given the social policy reasons which led to the enactment of the enabling legislation, I believe that an interpretation which favors the prevention of urban blight should be accorded these insurance contracts.
. This fact was admitted by counsel for the Facility during oral argument to this Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4954942. Public record. Not legal advice.