Summary
noting that an employee could apparently have collected both types of benefits even in the absence of Section 1735
Summary of this case from Travelers Indemnity Company v. DiBartoloOpinion
Argued March 10, 1992.
Decided April 16, 1992.
Appeal No. 84 W.D. Appeal Dkt. 1990 from Order of Superior Court, 391 Pa. Super. 53, 570 A.2d 509 (1989), entered December 13, 1989, at No. 294 Pittsburgh 1989, Affirming Order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, entered February 15, 1989, and Judgment entered February 21, 1989, at No. G.D. 88-18628.
Timothy J. Burdette, Anstandig, Levicoff McDyer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Loraine Smith Tabakin, Pittsburgh, for Florence Chatham.
Frank M. Gianola, Pittsburgh, for State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
ORDER
Order affirmed.
LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority in its per curiam affirmance. However, I do not agree that our decision in Azpell v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 526 Pa. 179, 584 A.2d 950 (1991) is controlling. See, Hackenberg v. Transp. Authority, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879 (1991), (Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Cappy, J.).