Court Opinion

ID: 9650556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:43:26.152681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:23.176841
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
dissenting.
For the reasons set forth in my Dissenting Opinion in Rosipal v. Montgomery Ward, 360 Pa.Super. 570, 521 A.2d 49 (1987), and because I continue to believe that Kuney v. PMA Insurance Company, 379 Pa.Super. 598, 550 A.2d 1009 (1989) (pet. for alloc, filed at 241 E.D. Allocatur Docket 1989, 3-13-89) is a correct statement of the law, I must dissent.
I cannot believe that our legislature intended the use of the word “injury” in the Workers’ Compensation Act to encompass intentional fraudulent acts of insurance companies and their employes designed to deny benefits due Pennsylvania workers.. Cf., Reed v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., 367 F.Supp. 134 (E.D.Pa.1973).
MELINSON, J., joins.