Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

934 A.2d 687, 594 Pa. 4, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2178

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 17, 2007·No. Appeal No. 292 MAL 2007·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

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 [5] 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

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 [5] 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?

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance, 934 A.2d 687, 594 Pa. 4, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 2178 (Pa. 2007).

Pincite

934 A.2d 687 (Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related