Opinion

Fayette County Housing Authority v. Housing & Redevelopment Insurance Exchange

  • 2001 Pa. Super. 83
  • 771 A.2d 11
  • 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 288
  • 2001 WL 238436
Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Mar 12, 2001
Status
Published
Author
McEWEN
On the bench
McEwen, Cavanaugh, Kelly, Popovich, Hudock, Elliott, Joyce, Musmanno, Lally-Green
Cited by
9 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.6%

explaining that merely accepting the non-binding decisions of other courts "by the purely mechanical process of searching the nations courts for conflicting decisions" amounts to an abdication of this Court's judicial role

How later courts described this case

  • explaining that merely accepting the non-binding decisions of other courts "by the purely mechanical process of searching the nations courts for conflicting decisions" amounts to an abdication of this Court's judicial role

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McEWEN, President Judge,

dissenting:

¶ 1 While the author of the majority Opinion has in usual fashion undertaken a careful analysis of the issues presented in this appeal and proceeded to a perceptive expression of position, I am obliged to dissent and do so in reliance upon the dissenting opinion of our learned colleague Judge Justin M. Johnson in Lititz Mut. Ins. Co. v. Steely, 746 A.2d 607 (Pa.Super.1999). Appellee Umbel seeks a recovery, in the underlying civil action, from appellee Fayette County Housing Authority, based upon claims that the authority failed to comply with various federal statutes and regulations. Thus, the civil action underlying the instant declaratory judgment proceeding does not present a claim for bodily injury arising out of the “actual, alleged or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of pollutants”, but arises, as the complaint recites, from the Authority’s “derogation of its regulatory responsibilities”. The Lititz dissent of Judge Johnson provides so clear a clarion call for rejection of the claim of exclusion that I more wisely serve to cite to his insightful discussion of the foregoing notions, as well as the well established principle that it is the nature of the claim, and not the details of the injury, which triggers the duty of an insurer to defend. Thus, I would affirm the decision of the distinguished Judge Gerald R. Solomon requiring appellant to provide a defense to appellee, Fayette County Housing Authority, in the underlying action.

¶ 2 FORD ELLIOTT, J., and MUSMANNO, J., join this Dissenting Statement.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.