Bryant v. Girard Bank

20 Citing cases

  1. Aetna Life Cas. Corp. v. Maravich

    824 F.2d 266 (3d Cir. 1987)   Cited 10 times

    That "is determined by the terms of the policy and not the ownership of the underlying insured asset." Bryant v. Girard Bank, 358 Pa. Super. 335, 353, 517 A.2d 968, 978 (1986); Maravich, 350 Pa. Super. at 403-11, 504 A.2d at 902-06; McDivitt v. Pymatuning Mutual Fire Insurance Co., 303 Pa. Super. 130, 135-36, 449 A.2d 612, 615 (1982); Opat v. State Farm Fire Casualty Insurance Co., 542 F. Supp. 1321, 1324-27 (W.D.Pa. 1982), aff'd, 755 F.2d 922 (3d Cir. 1984). The Pennsylvania Superior Court followed this rule.

  2. Calex Exp., Inc. v. Bank of America

    401 F. Supp. 2d 407 (M.D. Pa. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Finding an intervening act of forgery to be a superseding cause of a plaintiff's damages

    Pennsylvania courts have adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 448 to address superseding causes. Ford v. Jeffries, 379 A.2d 111, 115 (Pa. 1977); Bryant v. Girard Bank, 57 A.2d 968, 974 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1986). The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort of crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor's negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or a crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized that likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.

  3. Bd. of Supervisors of Willistown Twp. v. Main Line Gardens, Inc.

    155 A.3d 39 (Pa. 2017)

    Id. at 1363. In support of its ruling, the Superior Court cited to two of its prior decisions, Bryant v. Girard Bank , 358 Pa.Super. 335, 517 A.2d 968, 973 (1986), and Scarborough by Scarborough v. Lewis , 359 Pa.Super. 57,518 A.2d 563, 566 (1986), both of which likewise held that the failure to brief an issue raised in a post-trial motion results in waiver.DiSalle does not make clear whether the trial court found the unbriefed issue waived or if, instead, the Superior Court did so on appeal.

  4. Bd. of Supervisors v. Main Line Gardens, Inc.

    155 A.3d 39 (Pa. 2017)

    Id. at 1363. In support of its ruling, the Superior Court cited to two of its prior decisions, Bryant v. Girard Bank , 358 Pa.Super. 335, 517 A.2d 968, 973 (1986), and Scarborough by Scarborough v. Lewis , 359 Pa.Super. 57,518 A.2d 563, 566 (1986), both of which likewise held that the failure to brief an issue raised in a post-trial motion results in waiver.DiSalle does not make clear whether the trial court found the unbriefed issue waived or if, instead, the Superior Court did so on appeal.

  5. Jackson v. Kassab

    2002 Pa. Super. 370 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002)   Cited 23 times
    Holding issue must be raised in post-trial motion in order to be preserved

    "[F]ailure to set forth an argument in briefs filed in the court in support of post-trial motions constitutes a failure to preserve the issue or issues not argued." Id. at 1364 (citing Bryant v. Girard Bank, 517 A.2d 968, 973 (Pa.Super. 1986)); accord Kraus v. Taylor, 710 A.2d 1142 (Pa.Super. 1998). ¶ 9 Appellants' failure to brief and argue their post-trial motions resulted in the trial court being deprived of its opportunity to address the merits of their post-trial contentions.

  6. Deckard v. Emory

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-5182 (E.D. Pa. Jul. 13, 2020)   Cited 6 times
    In Deckard v. Emory, a mother had two accounts with a bank, which she used to deposit and withdraw funds for both herself and a business she allegedly owned with her son. Her son claimed his sister and brother-in-law stole cash receipts from the business, gained access to the accounts and assets of the business, and withdrew money from his mother's personal accounts.

    See Guardo v. Buzzuro, No. 1905 EDA 2017, 2018 WL 3133679, at *3 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018) ("Pennsylvania law is well-settled that a party's right to recover under an insurance policy is determined by the terms of the policy and not ownership of the underlying insured asset.") (citing Bryant v. Girard Bank, 517 A.2d 968, 978 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986)). The Court thus grants the Penn National defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

  7. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company v. Carney

    Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-2468 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 26, 2006)

    Furthermore, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has interpreted Maravich to hold that "even if a homeowners policy is owned by the entireties, an innocent spouse is entitled to fifty percent of the policy's value when the other spouse destroys the home by arson." Bryant v. Girard Bank, 517 A.2d 968, 978 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1986) (emphasis added). The fact remains in this situation that even though the property is held by Mr. Carney alone, Mrs. Carney is a co-insured, who by the policy is excluded from coverage by her wrongful intentional act.

  8. Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc.

    395 F. Supp. 2d 183 (M.D. Pa. 2005)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding a common law duty on behalf of a retailer to an issuing bank based on social policy, the business relationship, and the foreseeability of harm

    Moreover, Pennsylvania courts have applied another Restatement section, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 448 (1965), to permit recovery against a defendant for the criminal acts of another. See Civil Service Comm'n v. Vargo, 122 Pa. Commw. 642, 647-48, 553 A.2d 102, 104-05 (1989) (quoting Ford V. Jeffries, 474 Pa. 588, 597, 379 A.2d 111, 115 (1977)); Bryant v. Girard Bank, 358 Pa. Super. 335, 345-46, 517 A.2d 968, 973-74 (1986); DeJesus v. United States, 384 F. Supp. 2d 780, 800-01, 2005 WL 1936153, at *20 (E.D. Pa. 2005); Hayfield v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d 436, 461-62 (E.D. Pa. 2001); City of Philadelphia v. Stepan Chemical Co., 544 F. Supp. 1135, 1153 (E.D. Pa. 1982); Douglas W. Randall, Inc. v. AFA Protective Sys., Inc., 516 F. Supp. 1122, 1125 (E.D. Pa. 1981). Section 448 provides as follows:

  9. Guardo v. Buzzuro

    No. 1905 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Jun. 27, 2018)

    Pennsylvania law is well-settled that a party's right to recover under an insurance policy is determined by the terms of the policy and not the ownership of the underlying insured asset. Bryant v. Girard Bank, 517 A.2d 968, 978 (Pa. Super. 1986). Indeed, "[p]roperty ownership . . . is of minimal importance in determining entitlement to the proceeds of insurance, since the nature and extent of various rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms of the insurance contract."

  10. Insurance Company of Evanston v. Bowers

    2000 Pa. Super. 230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000)   Cited 26 times
    Holding that the ward of a rehabilitation center was not "family" as defined by the center’s insurance policy and thus not entitled to stacked UIM coverage after being struck by a vehicle

    Generally, an issue once raised must be preserved at each stage of the case. See Kraus v. Taylor, 710 A.2d 1142 (Pa.Super. 1998) (holding where appellant raised 63 errors in post-trial motions, but briefed only 13, the other 50 issues were waived, and could not be raised on appeal) and Bryant v. Girard Bank, 517 A.2d 968 (Pa.Super. 1986) (holding appellant precluded from raising issue on appeal which it failed to raise or suggest in post trial motions, or in brief filed in support of motions). Since the trial court was not given the opportunity to address this issue in the first instance, we have nothing left to review.