Case Name: Konrad KURACH, Petitioner v. TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent Mark Wintersteen, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated v. Truck Insurance Exchange, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2019-05-29
Citations: 211 A.3d 1252
Docket Number: No. 531 EAL 2018; No. 532 EAL 2018
Parties: Konrad KURACH, Petitioner
v.
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 211
Pages: 1252–1252

Head Matter:
Konrad KURACH, Petitioner
v.
TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Respondent
Mark Wintersteen, Individually and on Behalf of All others Similarly Situated
v.
Truck Insurance Exchange, Respondent
No. 531 EAL 2018
No. 532 EAL 2018
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 29, 2019
ORDER

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law in finding that the limitation of payment of General Contractors Overhead and Profit from actual cash value in a replacement cost policy, although violative of binding precedent, was nonetheless valid and enforceable?