The opinion
CIRILLO, Judge,
concurring.
Section 72 of the Worker’s Compensation Act (the Act), 77 P.S. § 72, abrogates common law liability of one employee to another for negligence, provided that the injury is one compensable under the Act. See Apple v. Reichert, 443 Pa. 289 , 278 A.2d 482 (1971); Jadosh v. Goeringer, 442 Pa. 451 , 275 A.2d 58 (1971); Babich v. Pavich, 270 Pa.Super. 140 , 411 A.2d 218 (1980). There have been few cases in which the courts of this Commonwealth have carved out an exception to the exclusivity provision of the Act, 77 P.S. 481(a), or co-employee immunity. Cf. Apple, supra; Sylvester v. Peruso, 286 Pa.Super. 225 , 428 A.2d 653 (1981).
There are two recent cases from this court, however, which I believe warrant mention relative to the issue presented today: Ferry v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 392 Pa.Super. 571 , 573 A.2d 610 (1990) and Chatham v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 391 Pa.Super. 53 , 570 A.2d 509 (1990). Additionally, I believe that the effect,, if any, of our Supreme Court’s decision in Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 520 Pa. 130 , 552 A.2d 1382 (1989) on the Apple decision merits consideration.
Although Ferry and Chatham pertained to uninsured motorist benefits, and the instant case involves first party benefits, in both Ferry and Chatham this court construed the MVFRL as a source of recovery separate from worker’s *381 compensation benefits. The Chatham court, guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in Thompson , stated:
[W]e take our direction from Thompson , the most recent pronouncement from the high court revealing that the MVFRL can be interpreted to sanction, in graphic terms, the Legislature’s condonation of a claimant/employee’s right to secure both work[er]’s compensation and uninsured motorist benefits resulting from work related injuries.
Chatham, 391 Pa.Super. at 59-60 , 570 A.2d at 512 . In Ferry , our court, relying upon Thompson and Chatham , reversed entry of summary judgment and agreed with the appellant’s argument that the MVFRL provides a separate source of recovery for employees injured by uninsured motorists that is independent of the exclusive remedy for work-related accidents under the Worker’s Compensation Act. Ferry, 392 Pa.Super. at 572-574 , 573 A2d at 611 .
Prior to the legislative amendment to the MVFRL, 1 Sub-chapter C, entitled “Uninsured and Underinsured Motorist Coverage,” provided an exception to the exclusivity clause of the Worker’s Compensation Act:
§ 1735. Coverages unaffected by workers’ compensation benefits
The coverages required by this subchapter shall not be made subject to an exclusion or reduction in amount because of any workers’ compensation benefits payable as a result of the same injury.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1735.
Subchapter B, entitled “Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance First Party Benefits,” does not include a similar exception; it does, however, include provisions which make reference to workers’ compensation benefits as a separate recovery or set-off against other benefits. Section 1719 provides:
§ 1719. Coordination of benefits
(a) General rule. — Except for workers’ compensation, a policy of insurance issued or delivered pursuant to this subchapter shall be primary. Any program, group contract, *382 or other arrangement for payment of benefits ... shall be construed to contain a provision that all benefits provided therein shall be in excess of and not in duplication of any valid and collectible first party benefits provided in section 1711, 1712, or 1715 or workers’ compensation.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1719(a). Section 1720 provides:
§ 1720. Subrogation
In actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to workers’ compensation benefits, benefits available under section 1711 (relating to required benefits), 1712 (relating to availability of benefits) or 1715 (relating to availability of adequate limits) or benefits paid or payable by a program, group contract or other arrangement whether primary or excess under section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits).
75 Pa.C.S. § 1720.
The Legislature repealed absolutely section 1735 of the MVFRL, 2 and it repealed section 1720 of MVFRL 3 insofar as it relates to worker’s compensation benefits. Though both repeals were effective after this appeal was taken, the legislature’s actions do lend hindsight in this case and credence to the result. I submit, however, that prior to this recent legislative amendment, the law did not say with certainty that appellee Dennis was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b); Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa.Super. 50, 52 , 457 A.2d 108, 109 (1983).
. Act No. 1993-44, S.B. No. 1, § 25(a) and (b), Approved July 2, 1993.
. Effective July 2, 1993.
. Effective August 31, 1993.