recognizing “[a] long line of Pennsylvania cases has held that a release covers only those matters which may be fairly said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given.”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing “[a] long line of Pennsylvania cases has held that a release covers only those matters which may be fairly said to have been within the contemplation of the parties when the release was given.”
- finding no merit in the appellant’s argument that a release was against contract law where it barred actions that could only occur in the future
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
I join the majority opinion, subject to a modest reservation pertaining to the use of terminology invoking the concept of “double recovery” with regard to subrogation. See Majority Opinion, at 908-09 (citing Brubacher Excavating, Inc. v. WCAB (Bridges), 575 Pa. 168, 174 , 835 A.2d 1273, 1277 (2003)). Although such terminology has been advanced by this Court in discussing an employer’s right of subrogation, I remain circumspect about its use in the workers’ compensation arena since the benefits involved are partial and discounted, see DPW v. WCAB (Harvey), 605 Pa. 636 , 654 n. 16, 993 A.2d 270 , 281 n. 16 (2010), and even where an injured employ *911 ee is able to recover in tort against a third party, such recovery may be substantially diminished via litigation costs and compromise settlements.
Justice McCAFFERY joins this concurring opinion.