Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

934 A.2d 687

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance. Read the opinion of the Court — 605 Pa. 590 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 17, 2007·Published

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?

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

Pincite

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