King v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
Brian I. KING, Individually and/or as Administrator of the Estate of David J.I. King, and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Individuals Similarly Situated v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
HESTER, Judge:
Appellant, Brian I. King, as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased son, David King, brought a suit in assumpsit against the appellee, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. This action evolved from an automobile accident in which appellant’s son was fatally injured when an automobile in which he was a passenger struck a utility pole. Since the appellant’s deceased son was listed as an insured under a policy issued by the appellee to the appellant, appellant’s complaint includes an allegation that appellant has been denied work loss benefits pursuant to the provision of the insurance policy and the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. In response to appellant’s suit, appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings which was granted by the lower court on October 23, 1981. It is from this Order that the appellant files this appeal.
The issue presented is whether the estate of a deceased victim is entitled to recover work loss benefits under our No-fault Act. Our court, recently sitting en banc, decided this issue in Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Company, 301 Pa.Super. 344 , 447 A.2d 999 (1982) (Hester, J., Dissenting). The majority of our court held that the estate of a deceased victim is entitled to recover work loss benefits under the No-fault Act.
The order is therefore reversed and the case remanded for disposition not inconsistent with this opinion.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(all maintaining the right of an estate of a deceased victim to bring an action for work-loss benefits)
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.