Legal Opinion · Dissent

Tannenbaum v. Nationwide Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 28, 2010No. 100 MAP 2007Published

1DissentJustice Todd

I respectfully, but strenuously, dissent from the majority’s interpretation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1722 (“Section 1722”) of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”). According to the majority opinion, an automobile insurer may reduce a disabled person’s income loss benefits under his underinsured motorist policy (“UIM”) by amounts he received under separate disability policies, even though he paid for such benefits entirely out of his own funds *608and through employer deductions from his wages. Such an interpretation, in my view, is contrary to our Court’s previous…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance v. HeffnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Johnson v. BeaneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Generette v. Donegal Mutual Insurance CompanySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Windrim v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994

8 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