Rohm and Haas Company vs. Continental Casualty Company
Year 1998
Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District
Case Number 00670PHL98 & 00671PHL98
Issue
  • "Known loss" standard vs. proof of fraud in application
State
  • Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania should require proof of fraud on an application for insurance by clear and convincing evidence and should not adopt a “known loss” standard which drastically lowers the insurer’s burden.

Related Docs
Author UP's brief was written pro bono by John A. Macdonald of Anderson Kill & Olick. Of Counsel: Amy Bach, Esq.
Related Cases
Rohm and Haas Company vs. Continental Casualty Company
Year: 1998
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District
Case Number: 00670PHL98 & 00671PHL98
Issue:
  • "Known loss" standard vs. proof of fraud in application
State:
  • Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania should require proof of fraud on an application for insurance by clear and convincing evidence and should not adopt a “known loss” standard which drastically lowers the insurer’s burden.