You may be looking for information about lawsuits pertaining to injuries, car accidents, insurance claims or medical mistakes. You've come to the right place. In our library, we compile our writings and other information on subject matter including car accidents, commercial truck accidents, motorcycle accidents, medical errors, insurance claims and other accidents and injuriess. Look around. The information is free and, if you'd like to talk to an Erie injury lawyer, we're a phone call away. Call us today for a free consultation about your injury case at 814-580-5017 or toll free at 877-505-9548 or use the on-line consult form on the right side of this page.
Your Erie County Personal Injury Lawyer Search
If you're looking for a Pennsylvania personal injury attorney, you've already done something great. You've started by looking on-line and found a site that lets you meet your Erie County Injury attorney by video and to collect detailed information about the Pennsylvania accident lawyers at Purchase, George & Murphey, P.C..
Too often, people injured in a Pennsylvania accident choose a lawyer by going through the phone book and calling the first lawyer they see with a big, colorful ad. Don't get us wrong. We use big, colorful ads, too. But our hope is to encourage people to collect more information about lawyers before making a decision about who they should choose to represent them. We firmly believe that the more people know about injury law the more likely they are to choose Purchase, George & Murphey, P.C..
Pennsylvania insurance claims lawyers have long known that insurance companies have been using computerized models to value claims and, despite insurance company claims to the contrary, that those models are intentionally used to underpay claims. No...
Erie County insurance claim lawyers can help you increase the amount of your accident insurance claim and reduce the stress caused by your insurance company. Call an experienced Pennsylvania insurance claims lawyer at Purchase, George and Murphey, P.C. at 877-505-9548 for more information about how to get an equitable settlement for your accident claim.
Real Life Question and Answer Series: My insurance company settled a claim against me even though I wanted to fight! Can I sue them?
In our "Real Life Question and Answer" Series we present actual questions that have been posed by real people and the answers we've provided. In this case, a woman is upset that her insurance carrier settled a claim against her. She wanted them to fight! She had questions. We offered answers.
I was in a car accident where the other driver was at fault. he cut in front of me and totaled my car.at the time i thought i was covered and later found that the car was covered but i wasn't, was considered an excluded driver but never remembered si...
Real Life Question and Answer Series - Is a fractured nose a " Serious Injury " under Pennsylvania Law?
In our "Real Life Question and Answer" Series we present actual questions that have been posed by real people and the answers we've provided. In this case, a woman with limited tort suffered a broken nose when she was rear ended at a STOP sign She had questions about whether her injury was a serious injury as defined in Pennsylvania law. We offered answers.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that insurance companies may deny uninsured motorist benefits in phantom vehicle accidents when insured fails to give law enforcement notice of accident within 30 days [PDF]
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that insurers may deny uninsured motorist benefits when insured fails to notify law enforcement of accident involving phantom vehicle within 30 days of accident in State Farm v. Foster even without showing of prejudice.
Insurance Companies Who Wrongly Refuse to Pay Medical Benefits Owed Under Policy Must Reimburse Attorney Fees of Successful Challenge [PDF]
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas issues opinion which correctly determines that insurance companies who wrongly decide not to pay medical bills for their insureds must reimburse the attorney fees incurred by an insured or provider who successfully challenges their refusal to pay medical benefits owed under the policy.
Supreme Court Holds that Insurers Not Entitled to Deny Uninsured Motorist Benefits for Insured's Failure to Comply with Contractual 30 day Phantom Vehicle Notice Requirement Absent Proof of Prejudice [PDF]
Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in Brakeman v. Potomac holds that failure of insured to comply with contractual requirement to give notice of accident involving phantom vehicle does not relieve insurance company of obligation to provide uninsured motorist benefits unless insurer can demonstrate prejudice as a result of the delay.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court Upholds Prejudice Requirement Associated with Failure to Provide 30 Day Notice of Phantom Vehicle to Uninsured Motorist Carrier [PDF]
Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that 30 Day Phantom Vehicle Reporting Requirement of the MVFRL does not relieve insurance company of obligation to provide uninsured motorist coverage absent proof of prejudice to the insurance carrier.
We offer a lot of information for people who've been injured and might have to sue to get compensation for their harm. Here, we offer information for people who caused the accident and are being sued. And we've got good news. Your insurance company will take care of almost everything. They'll pay to compensate the injured person. They'll pick and pay for a lawyer to defend you. Really, insurance makes being a defendant a much easier process than you might think. You just have to follow these simple rules.
Prudential loses effort to deny underinsured motorist benefits to their own insured in case where their insured was operating a rental truck and Prudential argued that their insureds lose coverage when they get in a truck that weighs more than one ton.
Superior Court Recognizes Limits of "Regularly Used Auto" Exclusion in Underinsured Motorist Coverage [PDF]
In Dixon v. Geico the Pennsylvania Superior Court recognized an important limit on the scope of the regularly used auto exclusion found in typical Pennsylvania insurance policies that provide uninsured motorist coverage and underinsured motorist coverage. In circumstances in which an employed mechanic was driving his employer's vehicle for purposes of delivering it (either incidental to or following repair) the Court found that it would be possible for a jury to conclude that such vehicle was not a vehicle "furnished for the regular use" of the employee.
The Supreme Court has decided to review a case in which an insurance company is attempting to deny coverage to its insured. GEICO insured both vehicles involved in the Ayers case but is nevertheless trying to deny coverage to its insured claiming that the household vehicle exclusion in their policy gets them off the hook for paying out on both policies. The Pennsylvania insurance claim lawyers at Purchase, George and Murphey will monitor the matter closely and report on it as more develops. [PDF]
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided to accept a case that may narrow the reach of the household exclusion in Underinsured Motorist and Uninsured Motorist car insurance policies. In GEICO v. Ayers, the Court will determine whether the household vehicle exclusion is enforceable in circumstances in which the same insurance company insures both vehicles. The case has the potential to limit the application of the Court's previous ruling in Erie Insurance v. Baker to those circumstances in which different insurers write the policies at issue.
In Erie Insurance v. Baker, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court upheld the validity of the so-called "household exclusion" in the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Coverage portion of a Pennsylvania auto insurance policy. The household exclusion applies to deny UM/UIM coverage to people who are injured while occupying another vehicle owned by the insured (or a resident relative) that is not insured on the same policy. The decision in Erie v. Baker definitively resolves the question of whether or not the household exclusion is enforceable under circumstances where the vehicles involved are insured by different carriers. Still unresolved (but working its way through the appellate system) is the question of whether the household exclusion is enforceable when the UM/UIM coverage at issue is provided by the same insurer albeit via different policies.
Superior Court Issues Sackett III - Pennsylvania Insurance Companies must follow rules before denying their insureds the benefit of stacked uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage [PDF]
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued an opinion in Sackett v. Nationwide Insurance (Sackett III) that summarizes this case's lengthy appellate history and confirms the rules that now apply in order for an insurance company to deny its insured the benefit of "stacked" benefits under the underinsured motorist and uninsured motorist portions of the policy.
These materials were provided to participants at a seminar given by Eric Purchase on April 1, 1998. The seminar was directed at insurance professionals, including claims adjustors and defense lawyers. The materials were intended to update attendees on the state of the law relating to first party auto insurance benefits.
Injured in a car accident at work? Erie Insurance denies UM coverage to injured workers and Allegheny Court agrees [PDF]
In Erie Insurance v. Conley, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas denied uninsured motorist coverage to a man injured in a car accident caused by the negligence of a co-worker. The Court reasoned that because the injured man was in the scope of his employment at the time of injury, Pennsylvania's Worker's Compensation Act made his co-worker immune from suit and therefore the immune co-worker did not qualify as a person from whom the injured plaintiffs was "legally entitled to recover damages."
Motorcyclist Denied UIM Benefits by Allstate - Allegheny County Court holds that household exclusion in car insurance policy bars coverage when operating motorcycle not insured on policy [PDF]
In Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Hymes, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County held that a motorcyclist injured when struck from the rear was not entitled to UIM benefits from his own auto insurance policy due to the household exclusion in his own auto policy.
A Purchase, George and Murphey, P.C. client recently won a substantial battle in a bad faith insurance case against ACIC for its handling of her Uninsured Motorist Claim. The court found ACIC in bad faith for misrepresenting UM policy limits; refusing to arbitrate (despite policy language requiring arbitration); misleading their insured about their intent to file an appeal of the arbitration award; low balling; delay; and seeking release of bad faith claims as condition of payment of UIM benefits.