Westbrook v. Robbins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan (ACP), inasmuch as it does not collect premiums or provide liability insurance, is not an “insurer” under the MVFRL
• holding that the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan (ACP), inasmuch as it does not collect premiums or provide liability insurance, is not an \insurer\ under the MVFRL
• refusing to impute the duty of paying attorney’s fees on an ACP when it is not considered an insurer under MVFRL; the relationship between ACP and eligible claimant is one created statutorily and must be defined ac cordingly
• “[W]hen construing the MVFRL it is important to pay close attention to the language of the act, itself, and the statute’s organization into subchapters.” (citing Hackenberg v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 586 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1991))
• “[W]hen construing the MVFRL it is important to pay close attention to the language of the act, itself, and the statute's organization into subchapters.” (citing Hackenberg v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 586 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1991))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).