Dercoli v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided 1989-03-03

Cited by 102 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting. I dissent. Until today an insurance company on the facts pleaded in this case has had no fiduciary duty to an insured, even when it advised its insured that he does not need a lawyer. But if, under the guise of “fair dealing and good faith,” we are now to decide that insurance companies have a fiduciary duty to advise of every possible claim, surely insurance companies wil…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.