428 Pa. Super. 31 - Powell v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Metropolitan Prop. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Insurance Comm’r (Bonnie Beck), 517 Pa. 218 , 535 A.2d 588 (1987) (plurality) [hereinafter “Bonnie Beck”], our Supreme Court held that an automobile insurer may not rescind an automobile insurance policy upon learning that the application for insurance contained material misrepresentations. In the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court, Justice McDer-mott reasoned that the General Assembly intended to preempt the common law right of rescission by enacting a comprehensive process for insurance companies to cancel automobile insurance policies due to misrepresentations by an applicant. See 40 P.S. §§ 1008.1-1008.11. Justice McDer-mott’s plurality opinion explained that the legislature had amended the statute to provide for structured cancellation, even when ... the insured has concealed a material fact, or has made a material allegation contrary to fact, or has made a misrepresentation of a material fact and that such concealment, allegation or misrepresentation was material to the acceptance of the risk by the insurer. 40 P.S. § 1008.4(3). Therefore, according to the plurality, instead of having the right to rescind the insurance contract, an automobile insurer in Pennsylvania would only be able to cancel the policy, thereby remaining liable for injuries and damages incurred before the cancellation. The Bonnie Beck plurality drew a concurrence, written by Chief Justice Nix and joined by Justices Flaherty and Papada-kos, which agr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 432 Pa. Super. 330 - Erie Insurance Exchange v. Lake

2. “Pursuant to the sixty-day window in which the insurer may exercise the common law right of rescission, insurers can immediately underwrite risks via the issuance of binders and then verify the insured's representations within sixty days to protect themselves from liability for a third-party suit against a dishonest insured. However, insurers are not given more than sixty days from the policy's inception to conduct their investigation[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 218 W. Va. 252 - Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Conley