MacMiles, LLC v. Erie Insurance Exchange
MacMiles, LLC v. Erie Insurance Exchange
Opinion
J-EO1001-22 2022 PA Super 203
MACMILES, LLC D/B/A GRANT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STREET TAVERN PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE No. 1100 WDA 2021 Appellant Appeal from the Order Entered May 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 20-007753
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 30, 2022
Irespectfully concur with the result reached by the majority although I do not join in the opinion. Ireach this conclusion, which is different from the relief Igrant in the related case, Ungarean eta/v. CNA et al, Nos. 490 WDA 2021 & 948 WDA 2021 ( Pa. Super. 2022), because these cases, in which the Court must address coverage issues, are fact intensive matters which require, in each case, a review of the individual policy. We must base our decision solely on the policy's language. Therefore, Iwrite separately to highlight that our review of MacMiles's claims is restricted to the " specific terms employed" in Erie's policy. See Harleysville Ins. Cos. v. Aetna Cas & Sur. Ins. Co., 795 A.2d 383, 387 ( Pa. 2002).
Judges Lazarus, Kunselman, and Nichols join this concurring statement.
Opinion
J-EO1001-22 2022 PA Super 203
MACMILES, LLC D/B/A GRANT IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STREET TAVERN PENNSYLVANIA
V.
ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE No. 1100 WDA 2021 Appellant Appeal from the Order Entered May 25, 2021 In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): GD 20-007753
BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., BENDER, P.J.E., BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., STABILE, J., KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.
CONCURRING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, P.J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 30, 2022
Irespectfully concur with the result reached by the majority although I do not join in the opinion. Ireach this conclusion, which is different from the relief Igrant in the related case, Ungarean eta/v. CNA et al, Nos. 490 WDA 2021 & 948 WDA 2021 ( Pa. Super. 2022), because these cases, in which the Court must address coverage issues, are fact intensive matters which require, in each case, a review of the individual policy. We must base our decision solely on the policy's language. Therefore, Iwrite separately to highlight that our review of MacMiles's claims is restricted to the " specific terms employed" in Erie's policy. See Harleysville Ins. Cos. v. Aetna Cas & Sur. Ins. Co., 795 A.2d 383, 387 ( Pa. 2002).
Judges Lazarus, Kunselman, and Nichols join this concurring statement.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.