Court Opinion

ID: 9630290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:07:41.20413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:45.843487
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
dissenting:
I must dissent from the Majority’s conclusion that, as a result of the passage of Act 6 of 1990, a passenger in an *115uninsured vehicle is now an ineligible claimant under the Assigned Claims Plan, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1751, et seq. I believe that such a conclusion is contrary to the plain reading of the statute, and its purpose and would create the absurd result of disallowing recovery to innocent passengers and yet permit recovery to pedestrians struck by an uninsured vehicle.
The Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law of 1984 set forth the provisions of the Assigned Claims Plan in Subchapter E. Those who are eligible to recover benefits were listed in Section 1751, 75 Pa.C.S.A. At issue in this case is an interpretation of Subsection (a)(5). It provides:
A person is eligible to recover benefits from the Assigned Claims Plan if the person meets the following requirements:
(5) Is not the operator or occupant of a motor vehicle owned by a self-insurer or by an individual or entity who or which is immune from liability for, or is not required to provide, benefits or uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1752
The critical language in this case concerns one who is an “occupant of a motor vehicle owned by ... an individual ... who ... is not required to provide, benefits or uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.” The Majority reasons that since under Act 6, uninsured and underinsured coverage is no longer required, the owner of the motor vehicle in which the claimant was traveling was not required to provide uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, thus the claimant is ineligible. I must disagree with this reasoning.
First, the Majority errs by not reading the statutory provision in its entirety, but instead focusing on on the language “not required to provide ... uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage.” The statute excludes coverage to a passenger traveling in an automobile owned by one “who is not required to provide benefits or uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. It is undisputed that Act 6 made optional only uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage. The optional provisions of Act 6 did not concern other benefits. Thus, as long as the motor vehicle in which the claimant was *116traveling, was owned by one who was required to provide benefits or uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, the claimant is eligible to recover under the Assigned Claims Plan. Since the owner of the vehicle did not make any arrangements which would place her outside the mandatory coverage requirements, See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1782, she was one who was required to provide benefits and the passenger in her vehicle should not be excluded from eligibility by § 1752(a)(5).
Secondly I believe it is wrong to conclude that the optional provisions set forth in Act 6, are to be used in interpreting § 1752(a)(5). The statutory language at issue was written long before the optional provisions of Act 6 existed and referred to two different classes of persons who would be deemed ineligible to recover benefits from the Assigned Claims Plan; those who are operators or occupants of an automobile owned by either a 1) self-insurer or 2) an individual or entity who or which is immune from liability or not required to provide benefits or uninsured or underinsured motorist coverage. The categories listed correspond to the legislative mandate which, absent proof of the purchase of an automobile liability insurance policy, requires that proof of financial responsibility be furnished in one of two ways. Under 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1782 a person can demonstrate financial responsibility by furnishing proof that the vehicle is covered “by a program of self-insurance” or by filing evidence that “other reliable financial arrangements, deposits, resources or commitments acceptable to the department” exist. 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1782. In these two situations where owners are either “self-insurers” or have filed evidence demonstrating the existence of acceptable “financial arrangements” (self-certifiers), the purchase of an automobile insurance policy is not required. Since § 1752(a)(5) addresses those who operate or occupy a vehicle owned by a self-insurer or one who is immune from liability or not required to provide benefits or uninsured/underinsured coverage, it is evident that the legislature was referring to the two types of owners it described in 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1782(a), who are not required to purchase a policy of automobile insurance to satisfy the requirement of financial responsibility, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1786.
*117Because the provisions of § 1752(a)(5) refer to two types of owners, who existed and who were identified in legislation which was enacted at the same time as it, I believe that it is improper to conclude that the legislature 6 years later, when passing Act 6, intended to include a new all encompassing group of owners to § 1752(a)(5) without specifically stating so. Previous to the passage of Act 6 persons in the claimant’s position were permitted to recover uninsured motorist benefits under the Assigned Claims Plan. See Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 496 Pa. 215, 436 A.2d 621 (1981). It can be presumed that the Legislature was familiar with the existing case law when Act 6 was passed, 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(c)(5), yet it left § 1752 wholly intact. If the legislature had intended to modify the current state of the law so that only pedestrians and bicyclists were covered under the Assigned Claims Plan, I believe that it can be presumed that they would have done so expressly. The legislature did appear to have been aware of the effect of Act 6 on the Assigned Claims Plan because it did make a change to § 1753 by deleting language referring to funeral benefits to reflect the reduction of mandatory first party benefits. No changes were made to § 1752.
Not only do I believe that the legislature would have made an express change in the definition of eligible claimants had it intended Act 6 to change the eligibility requirements, but I believe that it is incomprehensible that the legislature would consider such a change because it would have an unfair and unreasonable result. The Majority disputes this characterization and claims that its interpretation would not lead to an absurd result because pedestrians and occupants or operators of vehicles owned by another can logically be treated different. The Majority reasons that: “[p]edestrians have no choice as to whether the vehicle which injures them is insured or uninsured; occupants make conscious decisions to ride in a particular vehicle and must accept the attendant risks as to the financial responsibility of the owner.” Majority Opinion at 851. It is precisely this distinction which I find untenable.
A passenger of a vehicle owned by another, who has no insurance of their own, perhaps because they did not own an *118motor vehicle, should be no more responsible for the owner’s failure to obtain uninsured motorist coverage than should a pedestrian. Neither person can, or should, be charged with knowing the status of insurance held by the owner of the vehicle. The Majority suggests that occupants make conscious decisions to ride in a particular vehicle, but it cannot be reasonably expected that such an occupant would quiz the owner about status of insurance on the vehicle. Does the majority expect every person who travels in another’s car to question the owner about the scope of coverage on the vehicle or face the consequence of being denied benefits in the event of an accident? If occupants are expected to question owners, should occupants rely on an owner’s response or should more formal proof be required? I cannot believe that the legislature would require such conduct on the part of every person who has ever traveled in a friend or relative’s car.
Because I believe the application of Act 6 to the eligibility requirements under the Assigned Claims Plan would lead to an absurd result and because the § 1752 is clear in defining those who are excluded, and that the claimant in this case does not fall within its definition, I dissent from the Majority’s ruling and would affirm the trial court decision.