Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Chatham v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.
529 Pa. 494
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 1992-04-16
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- noting that an employee could apparently have collected both types of benefits even in the absence of Section 1735
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Chatham v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 8 opinions
Florence CHATHAM, an individual
v.
AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company.
Appeal of AETNA LIFE & CASUALTY COMPANY.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 10, 1992. Decided April 16, 1992.Timothy J. Burdette, Anstandig, Levicoff & McDyer, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Loraine Smith Tabakin, Pittsburgh, for Florence Chatham.
Frank M. Gianola, Pittsburgh, for State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Order affirmed.
LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.
*495 CAPPY, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the Majority in its per curiam affirmance. However, I do not agree that our decision in Azpell v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 526 Pa. 179, 584 A.2d 950 (1991) is controlling. See, Hackenberg v. Transp. Authority, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879 (1991), (Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Cappy, J.).