Legal Opinion

Laundry Owners Mutual Liability Insurance v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 1, 1994PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MONTEMURO, Justice.

This case presents the issue of whether the Workmen’s Compensation Act1 (the Act) entitles an insurer to interest on compensation payments reimbursed from the Supersedeas Fund (the Fund). We now hold it does not.

The facts giving rise to this case are as follows: On June 1, 1982, Barbara Herpak filed a claim petition alleging that she had been disabled in an auto accident on December 3,1981 when she worked for Stop-N-Go Food Stores. On April 6, 1984, a referee granted this petition and ordered Stop-N-Go and its insurer, Laundry Owners Mutual Liability Insurance…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Equitable Credit & Discount Co. v. GeierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
  2. Smith v. MitchellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Laundry Owners Mutual Liability Ins. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Universal AM-CAN, Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Universal Am-Can v. WCAB (MINTEER)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API