Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROSE FUSCO v. KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY (04/22/83)

filed: April 22, 1983.

ROSE FUSCO, APPELLANT,
v.
KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY



No. 1547 Philadelphia 1980, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia County at No. 3203 April Term 1979.

COUNSEL

Ronald A. Blumfield, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William C. McGovern, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Wickersham, McEwen and Lipez, JJ.

Author: Wickersham

[ 312 Pa. Super. Page 472]

This is an appeal from a lower court order which denied a petition seeking certain benefits under and pursuant to the No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (hereinafter, the Act).*fn1

In her petition, Rose Fusco alleged that her daughter Rose Marie Fusco had been involved in a motor vehicle accident, having been struck by a motor vehicle in Philadelphia on October 18, 1976. She died as the result of her injuries the following day. On April 21, 1977 appellee, Keystone Insurance Company, made a payment for medical costs incurred as a result of the accident.

On April 17, 1979 Rose Fusco, appellant herein, filed her petition seeking to recover from Keystone Insurance Company

[ 312 Pa. Super. Page 473]

    survivor's benefits and work loss benefits under the Act. Keystone Insurance Company filed an answer to the petition. The lower court found that Fusco's claims were barred by the time limitations set forth in section 106(c)(2) of the Act and dismissed the petition. This appeal followed.*fn2

In considering these claims we are mindful of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent holding in Sachritz v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, 500 Pa. 167, 455 A.2d 101 (1982), which stated, "we have concluded that the legislature has provided comprehensive statutes of limitations in Sections 106(c)(1) and 106(c)(2), covering all no-fault benefits" Id., 500 Pa. at 168, 455 A.2d at 102.

Appellant Fusco frames the issue presented as follows:

Did the lower court commit an error of law by denying Appellant's Petition for Survivor's Benefits and Wage Loss under the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, 40 P.S. ยง 1009.101 et seq. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.