Legal Opinion

Jones v. P.M.A. Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 21, 1985No. 02496PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BECK, Judge:

The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in sustaining appellees’ preliminary objections. The trial court concluded that appellant’s sole remedy was provided by The Workers’ Compensation Act, Act of June 2, 1915, P.L. 736, as amended, 77 P.S. § 1, et seq. (herein “the Act”), and that the trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction.

We affirm the trial court and conclude that preliminary objections were properly sustained but for reasons different from the trial court’s. 1

The relevant facts are as follows. Appellant sustained an injury within the scope of his…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gekas v. ShappSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  2. Jones v. Nissenbaum, Rudolph & SeidnerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
  3. Brown v. Travelers InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Readinger v. GottschallSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Thompson v. SikovSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. United Services Automobile Ass'n v. ElitzkySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Daughen v. FoxSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  4. Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Boris v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API