skip to Main Content

INSURANCE LAW: Subsequently discovered injury did not make unknown driver a hit-and-run driver

INSURANCE LAW: Subsequently Discovered Injury Did Not Make Unknown Driver A Hit-and-run Driver

After the two car accident, the drivers got out, spoke to each other and agreed there was no damage.  Later the plaintiff’s brought a UM claim against his insurer claiming the other driver qualified as a hit-an- run driver because the plaintiff did not have his identity.  The Superior Court grants the insurers summary judgment motion.

Carter v. Philadelphia Ins. Co. (July 30, 2014)

Interested in more information?
Contact us now for experienced and professional legal counsel.

This is Attorney Advertising. This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.