Eastcoast Equipment Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co.

stating there would little to no reason to apply the doctrine of contra proferentem to an agreement between two large companies who both had been advised by competent counsel | stating there would little to no reason to apply the doctrine of contraproferentem to an agreement between two large companies who both had been I I I advised by competent counsel | per curiam opinion affirming on the opinion of the lower court reported at 38 D. & C. 2d 499 | “An insurance policy is, in general nature, a ‘contract of adhesion,’ where the purchaser has no bargaining power, and thus the policy must be construed strictly against the insurer.” | Pennsylvania law applicable in a case where a comprehensive general liability policy was contracted for, “issued and delivered in Pennsylvania,” even though the accident occurred in New Jersey injured New Jersey plaintiffs and the insured was a New Jersey corporation | adopting the opinion of the trial court | rejecting contrary law in New Jersey