Legal Opinion · Dissent

Driscoll v. Travelers Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1988No. 01870Published

1DissentBrosky, Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s view. We are called upon, according to the majority, to decide whether accrued work loss is to be calculated by net income loss or gross income loss for purposes of determining the period of limitation.

The majority states “we must determine whether, for the purpose of § 1009.106(c)(1) [the limitations section], appellant commenced the action within two years after his accrued work loss equaled [sic] $15,000, within the meaning of § 1009.106(a)(1).” It is very important to note that nowhere in the limitations section of the No-fault Act is there…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Kamperis v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  2. Miller v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Augostine v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Murphy v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API