Court Opinion

ID: 9764200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:14:27.314165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.669294
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Nix:
I am still of the opinion expressed in my dissent in Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 454 Pa. 179, 301 A. 2d 849 (1973).
The result reached by the majority in this case is particularly inexplicable in view of the statutory requirement that the State carry insurance coverage,1 and the fact that the State maintained insurance covering this claim.
Mr. Justice Egberts and Mr. Justice Manderino join in this dissenting opinion.

 “The Department of Property and Supplies shall have the power, and its duty shall be:
(b) To procure automobile liability insurance, covering vehicles owned by the Commonwealth. . . .
“All automobile liability insurance procured by the Department of Property and Supplies hereunder shall protect both the Commonwealth and the State officer or employe operating the vehicle, or State officers and employes and officers and enlisted men of the Pennsylvania National Guard . . . against claims for damages for injury to person or property. . . .” Administrative Code of 1929, Act of April 9, 1929, P. L. 177, §2404, as amended, 71 P.S. 634.