Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): concluded that this regulation does not require a bus operator under contract to provide insurance coverage for a bus that it does not own and did not register. The court reasoned that under Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, only the vehicle’s owner or registrant is responsible for maintaining financial responsibility. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786. This responsibility, the court concluded, belonged to COLT. (Trial Court Opinion at 15). We agree. Moreover, we decline to impose the requirement of maintaining coverage for every vehicle driven by Lebanon Coach on its insurer when the regulation clearly imposes that duty on the common or contract carrier of passengers. See 52 Pa.Code § 32.11; Czarnecki v. Delco Cab, Inc., 276 Pa.Super. 148, 152, 419 A.2d 139, 141 (1980) (<HOLDING>). Although the Lehmans strenuously argue that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage (B) holding evidence including that insurer only charged life insurance premium that would ordinarily apply to onehalf the amount of coverage actually permitted by policy as written did not warrant retroactive reformation of policy to reduce coverage amount because it did not demonstrate mistake on insureds part and insurance company did not present evidence on what parties agreed to before the policy was issued (C) recognizing that a material misrepresentation or omission of fact in an insurance application relied on by the insurer in issuing a policy renders the coverage voidable at the insurance companys option (D) holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy (E) holding predecessor regulation likewise did not impose coverage requirement on taxicab companys insurer for cab not listed as scheduled vehicle in policy
Output (English): holding that if an insurer denies coverage based on an assertion that the underlying claim is excluded from coverage there is a presumption that the insurer did not suffer prejudice because prompt notice would have merely resulted in an earlier denial of coverage