Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

934 A.2d 687

DecidedOctober 17, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 934 A.2d 687 (Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance, 934 A.2d 687 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

[688]*688 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Did the Superior Court ignore the mandates of the Legislature in judicially repealing § 1722 of the MVFRL, thereby reinstituting double recovery and the collateral source rule in the system of automobile accident litigation in Pennsylvania?

b. Did the Superior Court depart from judicial precedent and ignore prior decisions by this Supreme Court by allowing a claimant to recover the same damages twice under the MVFRL?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[688]*688 ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

a. Did the Superior Court ignore the mandates of the Legislature in judicially repealing § 1722 of the MVFRL, thereby reinstituting double recovery and the collateral source rule in the system of automobile accident litigation in Pennsylvania?

b. Did the Superior Court depart from judicial precedent and ignore prior decisions by this Supreme Court by allowing a claimant to recover the same damages twice under the MVFRL?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 A.2d 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tannenbaum-v-nationwide-insurance-pa-2007.