# Robinson Protective Alarm Co. v. Bolger & Picker

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 3, 1986 · 512 Pa. 116

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544322

## Case

- **Full name:** ROBINSON PROTECTIVE ALARM COMPANY v. BOLGER & PICKER, Appellee, Richard ROBINSON and Continental Bank, Appellants. Appeal of CONTINENTAL BANK
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 3, 1986
- **Citations:** 512 Pa. 116; 516 A.2d 299; 1986 Pa. LEXIS 877
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Papadakos
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544322

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding no provision of the UFA restricts the immunity from liability to suits based on negligence or precludes its applicability to suits based on a contract theory

## Opinion text

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result because the lack of a signature on the certificate of deposit, a non-negotiable instrument, was totally irrelevant to the loss sustained by Appellee. I believe that the majority has adequately disposed of the entire dispute in its explanation appearing in footnote 9, page 303, where the majority affirms the “ ... well standing principle that a loss is not recoverable on the ground of contract breach where there is no causal relationship be *129 tween the breach and the loss.” (Citations omitted.) I view the balance of the analysis as qua obiter dictum.
HUTCHINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544322. Public record. Not legal advice.