Court Opinion

ID: 9752782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:34:29.249546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:21.677312
License: Public Domain

*313POPOVICH, Judge,
dissenting:
Finding that appellee as a matter of law cannot recover against appellant, his insurance carrier, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority, and I would reverse the decision of the court below.
Appellant asserts that as a matter of law, under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq., appellee must first obtain uninsured motorist benefits under the policy covering his employer’s vehicle. Under the MVFRL, when multiple policies are involved, a claimant must first obtain benefits under the policy covering the vehicle occupied by the injured person at the time of the accident. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1733. Only after such coverage is exhausted may an injured claimant seek benefits under a policy covering a motor vehicle not involved in the accident with respect to which the claimant is an insured. Id.; Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins. Co., 370 Pa.Super. 51, 535 A.2d 1145, appeal denied 520 Pa. 590, 551 A.2d 216 (1988).1
Presently, appellee was operating a vehicle owned by his employer, Harrin Communications, Inc., at the time of the accident and was acting within the course and scope of his employment. His employer’s vehicle was covered under an insurance policy issued by Reliance Insurance Company pursuant to the MVFRL. Subsequent to the accident, appellee recovered workmen’s compensation benefits from his employers. Additionally, appellee requested uninsured motorist benefits from his employer’s carrier, Reliance. However, in the separate action of Clark v. Reliance Insurance Co., CCP, Philadelphia, January Term, 1988, No. 5224, the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County on July 11, 1988, released Reliance from liability to appellee for unin*314sured motorist benefits.2 As explained by the lower court in its opinion in support of the present order,
Reliance Insurance Company, plaintiff Clark’s employer’s auto insurance carrier was released from liability for uninsured motorist benefits allegedly due to plaintiff under the holding of Lewis v. School District of Philadelphia, [517 Pa. 461,] 538 A.2d 862 (1988), proper precedential authority at the time.
In Lewis, supra, our Supreme Court held that the workmen’s compensation law was an employee’s exclusive remedy against his employer for injuries sustained in the course and scope of his employment, and, hence, the employee could not recover uninsured motorist benefits from his employer arising from a work-related automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Based on Lewis, supra, the lower court reasoned appellant was the only remaining insurer from which appellee could collect uninsured motorist benefits.
To the contrary, it is clear that the lower court erred in relying upon Lems, supra, as authority in appellee’s case against Reliance and in the present case. Lewis, supra, was decided under the provisions of the Uninsured Motorist Act, 40 Pa.S.A. § 2000 et seq., which our Supreme Court, applying § 1936 of the Statutory Construction Act, found to be subordinate to the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Lewis, 517 Pa. at 474, 538 A.2d at 867-868; 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1936. However, in Hackenberg v. SEPTA, 526 Pa. 358, 369-370, 586 A.2d 879, 884-885 (1991), our Supreme Court held that Lems, supra, “continues to be controlling precedent [only ] in cases ... involving the Uninsured Motorist Act and the No Fault Act.” Instantly, the MVFRL applied, and the lower court erred in relying upon Lewis, supra. Cf., Hackenberg, 526 Pa. at 369-370, 586 A.2d at 884-885.3
*315Since the passage of the MVFRL, the courts of Pennsylvania have ruled that the provisions of the MVFRL take precedent over the exclusivity provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and, as such, an employee may collect both workmen’s compensation benefits from his employer and uninsured motorist benefits from his employer’s insurance carrier. Chatham v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 391 Pa.Super. 53, 570 A.2d 509 (1989), relying upon Selected Risks v. Thompson, 520 Pa. 130, 552 A.2d 1382 (1989); Ferry v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 392 Pa.Super. 571, 573 A.2d 610 (1990); Odom v. Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 394 Pa.Super. 283, 575 A.2d 631 (1990), appeal granted, 525 Pa. 653, 582 A.2d 320 (1990); Azpell v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 526 Pa. 179, 584 A.2d 950 (1991); but see Hackenberg, supra (self-insured employer may not be required to pay both uninsured benefits and workmen’s compensation).4
Since appellee did not first obtain uninsured motorist coverage available from his employer’s insurer, I am convinced that he is not entitled to uninsured motorists benefits from his own carrier. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1733. Appellee ar*316gues he fulfilled his duty to collect from Reliance once his suit against Reliance was dismissed. However, in dismissing Reliance, the court erred in relying upon authority inapplicable to the MVFRL. Consequently, I believe that appellee did not fulfill his duty under § 1733, since he neglected to pursue that erroneous decision on appeal. Although I recognize that Hackenberg, supra, was decided three years after Reliance was released from liability, the court’s decision to release Reliance was nevertheless erroneous. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that requiring a claimant to pursue his legal rights fully is “unrealistic.” To require otherwise in this case penalizes appellant for the lower court’s mistake and for appellee’s failure to exercise his rights. Therefore, I dissent.5

. We note that the State farm insurance policy in question specifically adopts the language used in the priority provisions outlined in § 1733 of the MVFRL.

. It does not appear from the record that appellee pursued the court’s decision regarding Reliance on appeal.

. In Hackenberg, supra, our Supreme Court held that in the case of a self-insured employer under the MVFRL, recovery under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was the sole and exclusive remedy for an employee injured in a work-related vehicle accident with an unin*315sured motorist. However, as implicitly held by the majority and explicitly noted by the dissenters, "claimants [with work-related injuries] whose claims are covered by insurance companies are entitled to uninsured motorist benefits and workmen’s compensation benefits ...” Hackenberg, 526 Pa. at 371, 586 A.2d at 885 (Dissenting Opinion by Cappy, J., and joined in pertinent part by Larsen, J. and Papadakos, J.).

. Further, the majority states, “It is unrealistic to require such tenacity from the insured when, in reality, the interest that would be vindicated on appeal is not so much his own as that of his insurance company.” Majority opinion, p. 308. I do not believe it is our concern whether appellant, an insurance company, somehow benefits from appellee’s vindication of his own rights. Rather, the pertinent question is whether appellee exhausted available coverage on his employer’s automobile.

. Moreover, newly enacted § 1737 of the MVFRL, in pertinent part, specifically states: "Notwithstanding anything contained in the ... Workmen’s Compensation Act, no employee who is otherwise eligible shall be precluded from recovery of uninsured or underinsured motorists benefits from an employer’s motor vehicle policy under this subchapter or the ... [Uninsured Motorist Act].” Clearly, this provision of the MVFRL prevails over the § 303 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act which provides workmen’s compensation benefits are the exclusive liability of an employer for a work related injury. 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1936. While we recognize that this section does not apply to the present litigation due to the timing of its enactment, this statute does demonstrate unequivocally the legislature’s "manifest intention” to permit recovery of both workmen’s compensation benefits and uninsured motorists benefits from one’s employer. Cf., Selected Risks, 552 A.2d at 1388 ("Although this act took effect after the incident here at issue, and therefore is not controlling as a statute, it is certainly a persuasive statement of what the legislature perceives as the appropriate public policy____’’); 1 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 1933, 1936.