Rohm and Haas Company vs. Continental Casualty Company

Year: 1998
Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Eastern District
Case Number: 00670PHL98 & 00671PHL98

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.

UP’s brief was written pro bono by John A. Macdonald of Anderson Kill & Olick. Of Counsel: Amy Bach, Esq.

 


The information presented in this publication is for general informational purposes and is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have a specific legal issue or problem, United Policyholders recommends that you consult with an attorney. Guidance on hiring professional help can be found in the “Find Help” section of www.uphelp.org. United Policyholders does not sell insurance or certify, endorse or warrant any of the insurance products, vendors, or professionals identified on our website.

Source: https://uphelp.org/amicus-briefs/rohm-and-haas-company-vs-continental-casualty-company/
Date: July 17, 2024