Douglas v. Schwenk

1 Citing case

  1. Humphreys v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co.

    404 Pa. Super. 347 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)   Cited 18 times
    Finding no bad faith based on failure to investigate facts underlying allegations in the complaint because insurer "was required merely to look to the complaint, look at the nature of the claims against Mr. Humphreys, and decide whether, if the allegations were proven to be true, would the policy provide coverage"

    III. Does the complaint's cause of action entitled "punitive damages" state a claim upon which relief can be granted? In reviewing an order sustaining preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer, it is necessary for this court to accept as true all well-pleaded facts and the reasonable inferences therefrom, and only sustain the demurrer if it is certain that no recovery is permitted. Douglas v. Schwenk, 330 Pa. Super. 392, 479 A.2d 608 (1984). Regarding Count I of the underlying complaint, appellants argue that the trial court erred in concluding that Niagara properly refused the request for a defense since the federal complaint did not involve Mr. Humphreys' status as an attorney and did not allege any malpractice on the part of Mr. Humphreys. Appellants maintain that the federal complaint does pertain to Mr. Humphreys as an attorney and concerns legal work which he performed.