From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 7, 2011
31 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-7

Richard A. MARLETTE, Sr. and Marleen Marlette, His Wife v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Herman L. Jordan.Petition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.


Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court, Nos. 17 WAL 2011 and 18 WAL 2011.

Prior report: Pa.Super., 10 A.3d 347.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 7th day of November, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court err (as identified in the dissenting opinion) in holding, in conflict with Allen v. M[e]llinger, that plaintiffs may recover delay damages based on the full amount of the jury verdict rather than on the legally recoverable molded verdict, which was reduced to reflect the insurance policy limits that plaintiffs were permitted to receive?


Summaries of

Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 7, 2011
31 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2011)
Case details for

Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:Richard A. MARLETTE, Sr. and Marleen Marlette, His Wife v. STATE FARM…

Court:Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Date published: Nov 7, 2011

Citations

31 A.3d 656 (Pa. 2011)

Citing Cases

Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Did the Superior Court err (as identified in the dissenting opinion) in holding, in conflict with Allen v.…