# Kane v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · December 22, 2003 · 2003 Pa. Super. 502

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702375

## Case

- **Full name:** William KANE and Dorothy Kane, His Wife, William Mellinger, Noel Weiss, Michael Foster and Merrilee Foster, His Wife, Keith McCall, Epiphaniana Beckham, Adnan Jaffar, Michael Raffaele and Margaret Muller, Vincent Carcia and Christine Carcia, His Wife, James Miller and Elizabeth Miller, His Wife, on Their Own Behalf and as Representatives of Similarly Situated Persons, Appellants, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Allstate Insurance Company, Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Ace American Insurance Company, Ace Fire Underwriters Insurance Company, Markel American Insurance Company, One Beacon Insurance D/B/A Pennsylvania General Insurance Company, Keystone Insurance Company and Erie Insurance Company, Appellees
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 22, 2003
- **Citations:** 2003 Pa. Super. 502; 841 A.2d 1038; 2003 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4588
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Graci
- **Judges:** Todd, Graci
- **Cited by:** 44 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/9702375

## Opinion text

GRACI, J.,
Concurring and Dissenting.
¶ 1 In typical fashion, the Opinion of the majority provides a thorough and compelling analysis of the complicated factual and legal issues presented in this case. I join its analysis and expression of the law in its entirety and differ from my esteemed colleagues only in the application of the law to the case against Erie.
¶ 2 The learned majority appropriately cites Madison Const. Co. v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 557 Pa. 595 , 735 A.2d 100, 106 (1999), for the proposition that a court “must find that ‘contractual terms are ambiguous if they are subject to more than one reasonable interpretation when applied to a particular set of facts.’ ” Opinion, at 1042 (emphasis added). In my view, under the particular set of facts present in this case, the contractual terms which the majority finds ambiguous are not subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Like the language in the *1052 other policies which the majority concludes yields a different result, the language of the Erie policy, under the particular facts present here, requires actual replacement before replacement value is due. The language in the Erie policy is the functional equivalent of that found sufficient in the other policies. Accordingly, in my view, the result should be the same. I would, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court in its entirety.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702375. Public record. Not legal advice.