Legal Opinion · Dissent

Driscoll v. Travelers Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 1, 1988No. 01870Published

1DissentMontemuro, Judge

I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that a gross loss calculation, rather than a net loss calculation, should be employed in determining the date on which the accrued work loss reached the $15,000 maximum. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, I believe that the legislature’s intent, which can be gleaned from construing the provisions of the No-fault Act in pari materia, was that a net loss analysis be utilized in calculating the date on which the $15,000 mark is reached. I therefore respectfully dissent.

I believe that the primary flaw in the majority’s analysis is that it approaches…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Allstate Insurance v. HeffnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  2. Motley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  3. Kamperis v. Nationwide InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  4. Sachritz v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Causer v. MandarinoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

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