Case Title: Jones, B., Aplt. v. Nationwide Property and Casualty Ins. Co. (concurring)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2011-12-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-41-2011] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT BRENDA JONES, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY APPEAL OF BRENDA JONES : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 61 EAP 2010 Appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court entered on May 24, 2010, at No. 3051 EDA 2008 affirming the order entered on October 17, 2008, in the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 1599 July Term 2008 995 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Super. 2010) ARGUED: May 10, 2011 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: December 21, 2011 I agree with the majority’s holding affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Appellant’s complaint. I write separately as I reach that result on different grounds. As the Superior Court in this case and the federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Harnick v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43126 (E.D. Pa. March 6, 2009) noted, this issue is easily resolved upon examination of the regulations promulgated by the Insurance Department. Specifically, 31 Pa. Code § 146.8(c) provides, in part, “Insurers shall, upon the request of the claimant, include the first-party claimant’s deductible, if any, in subrogation demands. Subrogation recoveries shall be shared on a proportionate basis with the first-party claimant, unless the deductible amount has been otherwise recovered.” Id. Accordingly, as Nationwide’s practice of pro rata reimbursement is specifically allowed by law, the dismissal of Appellant’s complaint on the basis of a demurrer was proper, and we need [J-41-2011] - 2 not address the equities or the common law. This is especially true here, where the record is unclear as to why Nationwide was unable to collect the entire amount of Appellant’s loss. Although it may be facially assumed Appellant was deemed ten- percent responsible for the collision, this is not certain based on the record before us, nor are the realities of negotiated settlements such as this one. Accordingly, I concur with the majority affirming the dismissal of Appellant’s complaint.