Appeals from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Application of Miley Detective Agency, Inc., West Point, Montgomery County, for temporary authority, to transport, as a contract carrier, currency, coin and valuables from points in Montgomery County, to the Central Penn National Bank, located in the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County; from points in the Counties of Lehigh, Northampton, Montgomery and Bucks, to the Fidelity Bank, located in the City of Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, No. A-00100010, and in the case of Application of Miley Detective Agency, Inc., for amendment to permit the transportation, by armored motor vehicles, of currency, coin, jewelry, gems and precious metals, between banks, savings and loan institutions and their customers and customer shipper locations, in the counties of Philadelphia, Chester, Delaware, Lancaster, Berks, Schuylkill, Carbon, Monroe, Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, Columbia, Montour, Northumberland, Lebanon and Lycoming, No. A-00100010, F.1, Am-A.
Herbert R. Nurick, McNees, Wallace and Nurick, for petitioner, Brink's Incorporated.
Larry R. McDowell, Harper & Driver, for petitioner, Purolator Armored, Inc.
Eric R. Rohrbaugh, Assistant Counsel, with him Alfred N. Lowenstein, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Joseph J. Malatesta, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Peter Platten, for intervenors.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Rogers, Blatt, Williams, Jr., Craig, MacPhail and Doyle. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 197]
In these appeals by Brinks Incorporated and Purolator Armored, Inc. from a grant by the Public Utility Commission (PUC) of temporary contract carrier authority to Miley Detective Agency, Inc. for the operation of armored car service as to which the applicant is also seeking permanent authority, the PUC and the applicant have filed motions to quash on grounds that (1) an order granting temporary contract carrier authority is interlocutory, and (2) the protestants lack standing.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 198]
Miley previously filed, and is still pursuing, its application for armored car service authority within the same nine Pennsylvania counties in which the protestants also have operating authority. After Miley later filed a further application, at the same docket, for temporary authority with respect to two specific customers, the PUC granted to protestants limited standing by an order of June 29, 1981, which this court held to be interlocutory.*fn1 Thereafter, the PUC, by its order of December 10, 1981, here sought to be appealed, adopted an action of the administrative law judge and granted Miley temporary contract carrier authority for nine counties, coterminous with the scope of the permanent authority request, as well as the two-customer temporary authority.
Temporary Contract Carrier Authority as Interlocutory or Final
In both cases here, the PUC bases its motion to quash on the claim that the grant of temporary contract carrier authority is interlocutory. We must reject that position because the temporary authority grant, with respect to its entire scope over its period of effectiveness, will not be subject to any review in any commission or court proceeding other than this one, and is therefore final.
In Pugar v. Greco, 483 Pa. 68, 394 A.2d 542 (1978), our Supreme Court adopted the test of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), which treats an order as final and appealable if
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 199]
(1) it is separable from and collateral to the main ...