Dissenting Opinion by Cappy, J., and joined in pertinent part by Larsen, J. and Papadakos, J.
How later courts described this case
- Dissenting Opinion by Cappy, J., and joined in pertinent part by Larsen, J. and Papadakos, J.
- Cappy, J., concurring and dissenting on the ground that the court's distinction between self-insured and other employers was irrational
- Cappy, J., concurring and dissenting, arguing that the majority's distinction between self-insured and other employers was irrational and not dictated by law
- self-insured employer may not be required to pay both uninsured benefits and workmen’s compensation
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LARSEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I join the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Cappy as to the appeal in Hackenburg v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. *373 Auth., No. 137 E.D. Appeal Docket 1989. Further, I dissent from the decision of the majority in Dyll v. Bell Telephone Co., No. 10 W.D. Appeal Docket 1990.
Mr. Justice Flaherty, writing for the majority, states that appellee, Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, as a self-insurer under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1701-1798.4, is not required to provide underinsured coverage. In Modesta v. Southeastern Pa. Transp. Auth., 503 Pa. 437, 445 , 469 A.2d 1019 (1983), this Court stated that “the approval received by a self-insurer allowing it to self-insure is the equivalent of a ‘liability policy of insurance’____” Self-insurance is not a means by which self-insurers may avoid the claims of those individuals for whose protection the insurance laws have been enacted. And it is patently absurd to believe that the legislature would have intended to premise the availability of coverage to injured parties upon whether or not the owner of an involved vehicle were self-insured.
Accordingly, I would find that self-insurers in this Commonwealth must comply with those sections of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law requiring the provision of underinsured motorist coverage in every vehicle liability insurance policy issued. 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1731-1736.
Thus, I would reverse the opinion of the Superior Court, which affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, dismissing appellants’ declaratory judgment action, and I would remand for further proceedings.
PAPADAKOS, J., joins this dissenting opinion.