From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Aug 30, 2016
144 A.3d 926 (Pa. 2016)

Opinion

No. 124 WAL 2016.

08-30-2016

Matthew RANCOSKY, Administrator DBN of the Estate of Leann Rancosky and Matthew Rancosky, Executor of the Estate of Martin L. Rancosky, Respondent, v. WASHINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, as Successor by Merger to Conseco Health Insurance Company, formerly known as Capital American Life Insurance Company, Petitioner.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue[s] set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue[s], as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether this Court should ratify the requirements of Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance Co., 437 Pa.Super. 108, 649 A.2d 680 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 641, 659 A.2d 560 (1995), for establishing insurer bad faith under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371, and assuming the answer to be in the affirmative, whether the Superior Court erred in holding that Terletsky factor of a “motive of self-interest or ill-will” is merely a discretionary consideration rather than a mandatory prerequisite to proving bad faith?


Summaries of

Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Co.

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT
Aug 30, 2016
144 A.3d 926 (Pa. 2016)
Case details for

Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW RANCOSKY, ADMINISTRATOR DBN OF THE ESTATE OF LEANN RANCOSKY AND…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

Date published: Aug 30, 2016

Citations

144 A.3d 926 (Pa. 2016)

Citing Cases

Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Co.

Whether this Court should ratify the requirements of Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance…

Rancosky v. Wash. Nat'l Ins. Co. (Estate of Rancosky)

Whether this Court should ratify the requirements of Terletsky v. Prudential Property & Casualty Insurance…