Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil at No. 3597 March Term 1984.
Paul M. Perlstein, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Martin Horowitz, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Spaeth, President Judge, and Johnson and Shoyer,*fn* JJ. Spaeth, President Judge, files a dissenting opinion.
[ 347 Pa. Super. Page 33]
This case is an appeal from an Order of the lower court denying Petitioner's motion to compel arbitration by his employer.
The appellant, while in the course of his employment, was injured in an automobile accident caused by an uninsured motorist. The appellant received workmen's compensation benefits from his employer and then demanded uninsured motorist benefits. The employer, appellee herein, denied these benefits. The appellant then filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration citing Modesta v. SEPTA, 503 Pa. 437, 469 A.2d 1019 (1983). This petition was denied and this appeal followed.
The appellant claims that because of the holding in Modesta, that self-insureds are required to maintain uninsured motorist coverage under the Uninsured Motorist Act,*fn1 he is entitled to such benefits.
[ 347 Pa. Super. Page 34]
The appellee, in its brief, contends that the appellant's recovery is limited to the benefits received under the Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn2
The lower court, in its opinion, cited Wagner v. National Indemnity Co., 492 Pa. 154, 422 A.2d 1061 (1980), for the authority that workmen's compensation is the exclusive means of recovery for an employee injured in the scope of his employment. The lower court correctly stated that while Modesta holds that self-insurers must provide uninsured motorist coverage such insurance does not compel coverage to an employee covered by workmen's compensation, but is reserved for those not injured in the course of their employment.
In Turner v. SEPTA, 256 Pa. Super. 43, 389 A.2d 591 (1978) (a unanimous opinion by the full Court), an employee of SEPTA was injured in a collision between the bus he was driving and another vehicle. This Court, in denying the employee's claim for no-fault benefits, stated that an injured employee's sole remedy against his employer is the Workmen's ...