Case Title: Brinkley v. Pealer

Citation: 341 Pa. Super. 432, 491 A.2d 894

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 1985-04-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
341 Pa. Superior Ct. 432 (1985) 491 A.2d 894 Herbert A. BRINKLEY, Parent and Natural Guardian of David J. Brinkley, a minor, Appellant, v. Jeffrey Ray PEALER, Appellee. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued September 20, 1984. Filed April 12, 1985. *435 Thomas E. Brenner, Harrisburg, for appellant. Scott A. Fleischauer, Harrisburg, for appellee. Before WICKERSHAM, WIEAND and HESTER, JJ. WIEAND, Judge: David J. Brinkley, a minor, was driving a Volkswagen station wagon owned by his father, Herbert A. Brinkley, when he was involved in a collision with a truck being operated negligently by Jeffrey Ray Pealer. Herbert A. Brinkley, parent and natural guardian for his son, filed a complaint against Pealer to recover damages to his vehicle, medical bills incurred because of his son's injuries in the amount of $500, and damages for his son's pain and suffering. It was alleged that the vehicle being driven by Pealer had been an unsecured vehicle owned by Robert N. Butt.[1] The defendant, Pealer, filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer on grounds that the action was barred by the provisions of the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.[2] The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. Brinkley appealed. We affirm in part and reverse in part. Section 301(a) of the No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, supra, 40 P.S. § 1009.301(a), provides as follows: A tort claim for property damage is not barred by Section 301(a) of the No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. Fitzpatrick v. Branoff, 504 Pa. 169, 172, 470 A.2d 521, 523 (1983). Therefore, it was error to sustain preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to the second count of the complaint which contained a claim for damages caused to the Brinkley vehicle. The complaint has failed, however, to state a legally cognizable cause of action for personal injuries. The medical expenses for appellant's son were only $500, and appellant has not alleged that his son's injuries or scarring were serious. He relies rather upon Section 301(a)(1) which provides that "an owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident remains liable if, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was not a secured vehicle." The issue for our determination, therefore, is whether the legislature's preservation of a common law tort action against an owner of an unsecured vehicle was intended to include the right to bring an action against the operator of an unsecured vehicle. The words and phrases used in any legislation are to be construed according to their common meaning and accepted usage. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 317 Pa.Super. 497, 502, 464 A.2d 431, 434 (1983). In construing the provisions of the No-fault Act, we should not disregard the clear and unambiguous language of the Act on the pretext that a literal interpretation will frustrate its spirit. Platts v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 301 Pa.Super. 379, 381 n. 2, 447 A.2d 1017, 1018 n. 2 (1982). The Act specifically defines an "owner" to mean "an individual . . . that owns or has title to a motor vehicle or is entitled to the use and possession of a motor vehicle subject to a security interest *438 held by another." Act of July 19, 1974, supra, art. I, § 103, 40 P.S. § 1009.103. It seems clear that Pealer does not come within the parameters of this definition of "owner." The same issue was considered and discussed by David Shrager in his work entitled The Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. He concluded as follows: D. Shrager, The Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act § 2:5.1, at 191 (1979) (emphasis in original). Appellant argues that if appellee was the thief and had control of the truck on the day of the accident, he was the "de facto" owner because he was holding it out as his own vehicle. As a "de facto owner," appellant contends, Pealer should have purchased insurance coverage for the truck. Although appellant's argument equating theft with ownership is ingenious, we must reject it. Not only would it require that we rewrite the legislative definition of "owner," but it would be entirely impractical to interpret the statute to require a thief to obtain insurance coverage for a stolen vehicle. The no-fault statute, moreover, made provision for an innocent victim of a collision involving a stolen vehicle. If the innocent, injured party is uninsured and no security is applicable to any vehicle involved in the accident, then his basic no-fault benefits will be provided by "the applicable assigned claims plan." Act of July 19, 1974, supra, § 204(a), 40 P.S. § 1009.204(a). Appellant also asserts reliance upon Section 208(a)(1) of the Act, which provides in part: 40 P.S. § 1009.208(a)(1). This section, however, is clearly inapplicable. It provides merely that a converter of a motor vehicle becomes partially ineligible to make a claim for no-fault benefits. The section provides no assistance in construing the section of the statute which abolishes common law tort actions for personal injuries. Next, appellant directs us to Section 501, which provides: 40 P.S. § 1009.501 (emphasis added). This provision is also not applicable to the facts of the case sub judice. It gives an insurer a right of indemnification against the owner of an unsecured vehicle when the insurer has been required to pay basic loss benefits to an occupant of the derelict owner's vehicle or to a spouse or relative residing in the household of that owner. Appellant in this case is not an obligor under the Act. Therefore, he has no standing to invoke Section 501. The defendant, moreover, is not the owner of the uninsured motor vehicle. Finally, the party injured was not an occupant of the motor vehicle of an uninsured owner. The injured person was driving his father's vehicle, which was an insured vehicle. For all these reasons, therefore, Section 501 has no application to this case. *440 We are told that in reality this action is controlled by appellant's insurance carrier, which provided uninsured motorist coverage and is now subrogated to the rights of its insured. It is argued that when an insurer has been required to pay its insured's claim for uninsured motorist benefits, it is then entitled to recompense, through subrogation, from the motorist who tortiously caused the injuries. It is axiomatic, however, that the rights of the subrogee can rise no higher than the rights of the subrogor. 35 P.L.E. Subrogation § 6 (1961). A subrogee is, generally speaking, placed in the precise position of the one to whose rights he has been subrogated. Fell v. Johnston, 154 Pa.Super. 470, 474, 36 A.2d 227, 229 (1944). Therefore, a subrogee cannot recover damages unless his subrogor has a legally cognizable cause of action against the third party. Commonwealth ex rel. Willow Highlands Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 369 Pa. 300, 306, 85 A.2d 83, 87 (1952). Because appellant in this case has no common law tort action for personal injuries against appellee, it follows that his subrogee, similarly, cannot maintain such an action. The order dismissing the first count of appellant's complaint is affirmed. The order dismissing the second count of the complaint is reversed, and the cause of action therein stated is remanded for further proceedings. Jurisdiction is not retained. [1] Although not alleged in the complaint, we are told by the parties that the truck was stolen. [2] Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. § 1009.101 et seq., repealed by Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, No. 11, § 8(a), effective October 1, 1984.