Lemon v. City of Philadelphia

592 A.2d 37, 527 Pa. 365, 1991 Pa. LEXIS 124

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Justice.

The issue presented in this case is whether an employee injured in a work-related auto accident may recover both worker’s compensation benefits and uninsured motorist benefits from his employer.

On November 19, 1984, William Lemon and Walter DeWitt, police officers for the City of Philadelphia, were injured when the police car in which they were riding was struck from behind by an uninsured motorist. The officers were acting within the scope of their duties when the accident occurred. It is undisputed that Philadelphia qualifies as a self-insurer under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1787.

The Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Superior Court affirmed. This court initially denied appellants’ Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and then, on application for reconsideration, we granted the petition on the grounds that the issue presented is the same as that addressed in Hackenberg v. SEPTA.

In Hackenberg, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879 (1991) we held that on the facts of a case analytically indistinguishable from this case, Lemon and DeWitt would not be entitled to recover both worker’s compensation benefits and uninsured motorist coverage from their employer. Accordingly, the Judgment of Superior Court is affirmed.

CAPPY, J., files a dissenting opinion in which LARSEN and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join.