CHATHAM v. AETNA LIFE CAS. CO

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Apr 16, 1992

Judgment

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Order affirmed.

LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion.

CAPPY, Justice, concurring.

I concur in the result reached by the Majority in its per curiam affirmance. However, I do not agree that our decision in Azpell v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 526 Pa. 179, 584 A.2d 950 (1991) is controlling. See, Hackenberg v. Transp. Authority, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879 (1991), (Concurring and Dissenting opinion, Cappy, J.).