Monday, January 14, 2013

UPDATE on Caserta v. GEICO Case

Caserta v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 2012 WL 6604613 (3d Cir. Dec. 19, 2012) (Scirica, Roth, and Barry, JJ.)(not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)(boyfriend/girlfriend relationship does not satisfy the 3rd element ("closely related") for a bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress; since the "closely related" element was not met, the court did not rule on whether the claimant would have been able to recover for such a claim under her boyfriend's mother's auto policy; court also ruled that girlfriend cannot recover for her own bodily injuries from her boyfriend's mother's policy because she does not meet the policy definition of an "insured")

The Tort Talk synopsis on the lower court's decision in Caserta can be viewed HERE.

Here is a LINK to that Third Circuit's decision in Caserta v. GEICO.

I sent thanks to Attorney Bill Mabius of the Pennsylvania Association for Justice for bringing this case to my attention.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.