2000 Pa. Super. 207 - Acceptance Insurance v. Seybert’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance · 431 Pa. Super. 276 - Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Weiner · 404 Pa. Super. 205 - Dibble v. Security of America Life Insurance · 433 Pa. Super. 55 - Britamco Underwriters, Inc. v. Grzeskiewicz · 396 Pa. Super. 234 - Harford Mutual Insurance v. Moorhead
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. This insurance does not apply to actions and proceedings to recover damages for “bodily injury”, “property damage” or “personal and advertising injury” arising from the following and the Company is under no duty to defend or to indemnify an insured in any action or proceeding alleging such damages: 1. Assault and Battery or any act or omission in connection with the prevention or suppression of such acts; * * * B. This exclusion applies regardless of the degree of culpability or intent and without regard to: 1. Whether the acts are alleged to be by or at the instruction or at the direction of the insured, his officers, employees, agents or servants; or by any other person lawfully or otherwise on, at or near the premises owned or occupied by the insured; or by any other person; 2. The alleged failure of the insured or his officers, employees, agents or servants in the hiring, supervision, retention or control of any person, whether or not an officer, employee, agent or servant of the insured; 3. The alleged failure of the insured or his officers, employees, agents or servants to attempt to prevent, bar or halt any such conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Summary judgment properly is granted when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b). The scope of our review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035 is well established. In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Curbee, Ltd. v. Rhubart, 406 Pa.Super. 505 , 594 A.2d 733, 735 (1991); Laventhol & Horwath v. Dependable Insurance Associates, Inc., 396 Pa.Super. 553 , 579 A.2d 388, 390 (1990). We will reverse only if there has been an error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. Hetrick v. Apollo Gas Co., 415 Pa.Super. 189 , 608 A.2d 1074, 1077 (1992).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Seybert’s Complaint contains no allegations that Seybert’s actual injuries were caused in any way other than by assault and battery by the five men in the Monroe parking lot. There is no suggestion that Seybert’s injuries were an accident ... or were negligently caused directly by Belmont employees. Seybert’s attack did not occur on Belmont premises. Therefore, no other allegations of negligence against Belmont reasonably could have been made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.