Case Name: William and Wilma LEMON, h/w Appellants, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee; Walter John DeWITT, III, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee. Appeal of William and Wilma LEMON, h/w and Walter John DeWitt, III
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1991-05-28
Citations: 527 Pa. 365
Docket Number: No. 79 E.D. Appeal Docket 1990
Parties: William and Wilma LEMON, h/w Appellants, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee. Walter John DeWITT, III, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee. Appeal of William and Wilma LEMON, h/w and Walter John DeWitt, III.
Judges: Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, jj.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 527
Pages: 365–371

Head Matter:
592 A.2d 37
William and Wilma LEMON, h/w Appellants, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee. Walter John DeWITT, III, Appellant, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Appellee. Appeal of William and Wilma LEMON, h/w and Walter John DeWitt, III.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Submitted Jan. 15, 1991.
Decided May 28, 1991.
Alan I. Lourie, for appellant.
Alan C. Ostrow, for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, jj.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Justice.
The issue presented in this case is whether an employee injured in a work-related auto accident may recover both worker's compensation benefits and uninsured motorist benefits from his employer.
On November 19, 1984, William Lemon and Walter DeWitt, police officers for the City of Philadelphia, were injured when the police car in which they were riding was struck from behind by an uninsured motorist. The officers were acting within the scope of their duties when the accident occurred. It is undisputed that Philadelphia qualifies as a self-insurer under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1787.
The Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of the City. Superior Court affirmed. This court initially denied appellants' Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and then, on application for reconsideration, we granted the petition on the grounds that the issue presented is the same as that addressed in Hackenberg v. SEPTA.
In Hackenberg, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879 (1991) we held that on the facts of a case analytically indistinguishable from this case, Lemon and DeWitt would not be entitled to recover both worker's compensation benefits and uninsured motorist coverage from their employer. Accordingly, the Judgment of Superior Court is affirmed.
CAPPY, J., files a dissenting opinion in which LARSEN and PAPADAKOS, JJ., join.