Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jackson v. Travelers Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 7, 1992No. 1284Published

1DissentDel Sole, Judge

I must dissent from the majority’s holding that the Assigned Claims Plan [Plan] of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act [MVFRL] 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq., does not provide coverage for emotional trauma suffered by a husband who witnesses his wife’s fatal auto accident.

The majority relies on section 1752 of the MVFRL which states that a person is eligible to recover benefits from the Plan if that person is injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident. Then the majority points to section 1702 in which injury is defined as “accidently sustained bodily harm to an individual and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Sinn v. BurdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  3. Kelley v. Mayberry TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
  4. Burns v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  5. Zagari v. GralkaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

2 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