Valora v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund

884 A.2d 250, 584 Pa. 440, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 2217

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Valora v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund. Read the opinion of the Court — 595 Pa. 574 →

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided October 4, 2005·No. Petition No. 501 MAL 2004·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issues:

1. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it ignored Petitioner’s contractual right to subrogation and treated this as a case of equitable subrogation?

2. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it relied on precedent under the Worker’s Compensation Act to arrive at its conclusion that Petitioner was required to pursue its subrogation rights diligently?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 4th day of October, 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED, limited to the following issues:

1. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it ignored Petitioner’s contractual right to subrogation and treated this as a case of equitable subrogation?

2. Did the Superior Court err as a matter of law when it relied on precedent under the Worker’s Compensation Act to arrive at its conclusion that Petitioner was required to pursue its subrogation rights diligently?

Valora v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 884 A.2d 250, 584 Pa. 440, 2005 Pa. LEXIS 2217 (Pa. 2005).

Pincite

884 A.2d 250 (Valora v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.