355 Pa. Super. 276 - Pekular v. Eich’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 132 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 368 Pa. Super. 383 - Gabriel v. O'HARA (1987), 365 Pa. Super. 206 - Hardy v. Pennock Insurance Agency, Inc. (1987)
6 federal appellate · 58 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Standard Venetian Blind Co. v. American Empire Insurance · Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc. · Schott v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Birl v. Philadelphia Electric Co. · Gardner v. Allegheny County
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 132 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... that there is no inherent irreconcilable conflict [which] is supported by the fact the UIPA contains no provision either stating or implying that the power vested in the Insurance Commission represents the exclusive means by which an insured’s unfair or deceptive acts are to be penalized or that the insured is precluded from seeking private compensation for damages incurred. Further, as noted previously, we are mindful of the fact that our Legislature did not see fit to exclude insurers, insurance agents or insurance transactions from the broad scope of CPL regulations in either the original enactment of the CPL in 1968 or, more importantly, in its subsequent reenactment in 1976, a full two years after the enactment of the UIPA.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“In D ’Ambrosio, the Court expressly refused to supplement the UIPA with a judicially created cause of action which had never before been recognized by Pennsylvania courts. However, we do not read D Ambrosio to preclude existing common law remedies such as fraud and deceit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“¶ 9 The purpose of the UIPA is to regulate trade practices in the business of insurance in accordance with the intent of congress ... by defining or providing for the determination of all such practices in this state which constitute unfair methods of competition or unfair or deceptive acts or practices and by prohibiting the trade practices so defined or determined.”
2 later decisions 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.