Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1990

Soles v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided March 28, 1990 · Appeal No. 16 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 1989 · Cappy, Cases, Consideration, Files, Flaherty, Larsen, McDermott, Nix, Papadakos, Zappala

524 Pa. 280; 571 A.2d 378; 1990 Pa. LEXIS 84

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Kosor v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Orders of Superior Court affirmed.

McDERMOTT and ZAPPALA, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of these cases. NIX, C.J., files a dissenting opinion in which FLAHERTY, J., joins.

Dissenting Opinion

NIX, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

We have previously held that the stacking of insurance benefits was prohibited under the No-fault Insurance Act, Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. §§ 1009.101-1009.701 (repealed 1984). Antanovich v. Allstate Insurance Co., 507 Pa. 68, 488 A.2d 571 (1985). The Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1701 et seq., expressly prohibits stacking. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1717. *282Thus, any argument that stacking is permitted during a transitional period between the two acts is completely without foundation.

Further, the insurance agreements of appellants expressly excluded coverage of persons covered by another insurance policy. Under constitutional concerns for the sanctity of contract, we ought to respect the terms of valid enforceable contracts.

I, therefore, dissent.

FLAHERTY, J., joins in this opinion.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.