Case ID: pa_529/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: CAPPY, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

604 A.2d 1023
    Barbara ODOM and Jerome Odom v. CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and Keystone Insurance Company. Appeal of CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Argued March 10, 1992.
    Decided April 16, 1992.
    Wallace J. Knox, Matthew J. McLaughlin Knox, McLaughlin, Gornall & Sennett, P.C., Erie, for appellant.
    John W. McCandless, Erie, for Keystone Ins. Co.
    Robert C. Ward, Erie, for Barbara Odom and Jerome Odom.
    Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, jj.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Order affirmed.

CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.

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.).