of the previous owner of the property,” Id. at 438, who would not have been entitled to a variance. In this ease, the trial court’s reliance on our decision in King is misplaced. First, Appellant has not argued entitlement to relief on economic grounds. Rather, Appellant maintains that the property suffers unnecessary hardship as a result of changes in zoning. Here, Appellant’s lot was held in single and separate ownership prior to the adoption of the township’s ordinance, whereas in King the ordinance was in effect prior to the lot’s creation by the developer. Unlike the facts in King, the resulting hardship here was not inflicted by the previous owner of Appellant’s property. See Zoning Hearing Board of Bensalem Township v. Grace Building Co., 39 Pa.Cmwlth. 552, 395 A.2d 1049 (1979) (<HOLDING>). The trial court unduly emphasized the
holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment holding the obligation to defend does not arise until the insurer is presented with a complaint holding that new claims for damages could arise from actions that occurred subsequent to the judgment in the original action holding subsequent purchasers can stand in the shoes of the original owner with respect to a variance provided that the claimed hardship does not arise out of the purchase holding that certain fiduciary duty claims did not arise out of the underlying contractual provisions