Donegal Mutual Insurance v. Baumhammers

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided 2007-12-27

Cited by 214 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Chief Justice CAPPY concurring and dissenting. I join the majority conclusion on the issue of coverage, agreeing that under the insurance policy (“Policy”) issued by Donegal Mutual Insurance Company (“Donegal”), the claims made against Adrejs and Inese Baumhammers (the “Baum-hammers”) are for damages resulting from bodily injuries caused by an “occurrence.” I dissent, however, as…

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.