Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance v. Gartelman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that exclusion from personal injury protection (PIP) coverage for “an insured who is injured while occupying an uninsured motor vehicle owned by a named insured” and exclusion from uninsured motorist (UM
• holding that the exclusion contained in the policy at issue in that case denied PIP coverage to a class of persons statutorily required to be covered and was consequently invalid and that as a result, the named insured was entitled to benefits under the policy’s PIP provision
• invalidating an insurance policy provision that excluded an insured from PIP coverage
• invalidating an insurance policy provision that excluded an insured from PIP coverage
• court declined to decide whether moped was a “motor or highway vehicle” under the insurance policy
• “Any provision of an automobile liability insurance policy which conflicts with the requirements of the statute regulating such policies is invalid.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).