Legal Opinion

Kuney v. PMA Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 28, 1988No. 210PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROWLEY, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court sustaining PMA Insurance Company’s (appellee’s) preliminary objections and dismissing appellant’s complaint. Although presented in his brief as two separate questions, appellant, George Kuney, raises only one issue in this appeal; i.e., whether an employee has an independent cause of action against his employer’s workmen’s compensation insurer if the insurer has engaged in conduct designed to frustrate the employee’s right to compensation under the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, 77 Pa.S.A. §§ 1 et seq. We hold that he…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Pekular v. EichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  2. Reed v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1973
  3. Rosipal v. Montgomery WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Rosipal v. WardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Santiago v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Kuney v. PMA InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990
  3. Alston v. St. Paul Insurance CompaniesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Alston v. St. Paul Ins. CompaniesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Santiago v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

4 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