Court Opinion

ID: 9762611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:27:19.454894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:35.574216
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge:
This appeal follows the trial court’s ruling on cross motions for Summary Judgment. Summary Judgment in favor of Appellee, Plaintiff in the underlying action, was granted; while a like motion filed by the Appellant, defendant, was denied.
*607A unique factual circumstance provides the basis for the instant litigation. On January 17, 1985, Appellee was traveling as a passenger in a Renault Alliance when that vehicle was involved in an accident. Appellee suffered injuries and received benefits from Allstate Insurance Company, which had issued Appellee a policy of insurance covering a Jeep vehicle she owned. The Allstate policy was drafted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq., hereinafter MVFRL. Since Appellee’s expenses exceeded the amount she collected under the Allstate policy, she sought to have Appellant compensate her under the terms of a policy it had issued to the owner of the Renault Alliance. This insurance agreement was made prior to October 1, 1984, pursuant to the now repealed Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act1. After Appellant refused to tender benefits, this action was commenced.
Appellant cites three reasons to support its dispute of the trial court’s ruling requiring it to compensate Appellee. It is Appellant’s position that (1) the Financial Responsibility Law expressly prohibits Appellee from recovering these benefits from Appellant; (2) the No-Fault Act has been interpreted as prohibiting the “stacking” of these sought-after first party benefits; and (3) the terms of Appellant’s policy expressly preclude recovery under these circumstances. Upon review of the record, including the policies at issue, and the applicable law, we conclude Appellant’s challenges to the trial court’s ruling must be dismissed as meritless.
It is first claimed that Appellee is not entitled to recover benefits from Appellant because the MVFRL expressly prohibits Appellee from looking beyond her own policy for the recovery of first party benefits. Appellee points to the terms of the MVRFL since it “had become effective at the time of the accident which [gave] rise to *608Plaintiff’s claim.” Appellant’s Brief at 6. It is Appellant’s position that the limitations on the “stacking” of benefits provided in Section 1717 of the MVFRL apply where a plaintiff seeks to recover expenses resulting from an accident which occurred after the effective date of the MVFRL. However, the date on which the accident occurred is not critical to Appellee’s claim against Appellant. Appellee is seeking recovery based upon a policy Appellant had issued to the owner of the vehicle in which she was riding. This policy was issued pursuant to the No-fault Act. “The express language of Section 9 of Act 11 clearly indicates that the legislature intended that the new Financial Responsibility Law'would only apply to insurance policies issued on renewed on or after October 1, 1984. In so providing the legislature recognized that policies issued prior to October 1, 1984 would remain subject to the provisions of the repealed No-fault Act until such policies were renewed subsequent to the effective date of the Financial Responsibility Law.” Borysowski v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 368 Pa.Super. 399, 534 A.2d 496 (1987). Accordingly, the policy at issue is to be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the repealed No-fault Act.
More puzzling, however, is Appellant’s claim that the No-fault Act and the terms of its policy prohibit Appellee from recovering under this factual situation. The policy at issue provided personal injury protection with no maximum amount for medical expenses and a maximum of $15,000.00 for work loss for those eligible persons who sustained bodily injury due to an accident resulting from the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle as a vehicle. The definition of an eligible person included “any other person who sustains injury while occupying ... the insured motor vehicle.” Appellee would therefore appear to be included as an “eligible person” as that term is defined within the policy. However, Appellant relies upon specific language contained within its policy:
Exclusions:
*609This coverage DOES NOT APPLY to bodily injury to: ... (a) any person, except the named insured or any relative if entitled to Pennsylvania personal injury protection coverage as a self-insured or as a named insured or relative in another insurance policy.
As noted by Appellant, similar clauses prohibiting the stacking of No-fault basic loss benefits were judged to be enforceable by the courts of this Commonwealth. See: Antanovich v. Allstate Insurance Co., 507 Pa. 68, 488 A.2d 571 (1985); Wright v. National Grange Mutual Insurance Co., 323 Pa.Super. 559, 471 A.2d 86 (1984). Although Appellee would not dispute that the limitation found within the policy is enforceable, it is submitted that the terms of the limitation do not preclude her from recovering the benefits she seeks. Highlighted is the language of the policy which excludes coverage for any person “entitled to Pennsylvania personal injury protection coverage ... in another insurance policy.” Appellant contends that Appellee's entitlement to medical expenses and work loss benefits under her own policy would require the exclusion to apply. The trial court did not accept this argument, nor will we.
Appellant’s conclusion that Appellee’s entitlement under her own policy precludes recovery under the policy in question, presumes that Appellee contracted for “Pennsylvania personal injury protection coverage.” This term is not contained within the policy issued by Allstate to Appellee. Appellee was insured under the Allstate policy for “first party benefits.” The Allstate policy issued in accordance with the MVFRL was required to provide its eligible claimant with a minimum mandatory benefit of $10,000.00 for medical and rehabilitative expenses and $5,000.00 for income loss. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1711. Appellee purchased insurance in these amounts and recovered these benefits. The benefit to which Appellee was entitled under the Allstate policy cannot be equated with benefits to which she would have been entitled had the policy been issued pursuant to the No-fault Act. Appellant’s policy, issued in accordance with the No-fault Act, provided no maximum amount as its *610limit of liability for medical expenses and a maximum of $15,000.00 as its limit of liability for work loss. The coverages afforded insureds under these two acts cannot be equated.
Since Appellee was not entitled to receive “personal injury protection coverage” under her Allstate policy, and since Appellee falls within Appellant’s definition of an “eligible person”, she cannot be excluded from recovering under Appellant’s policy. The rationale for this decision was provided by the trial court: “the court considers the exclusion cited above to address specific circumstances arising from the No-fault Act — an insurance company would provide no benefits when an injured person could recover unlimited (No-Fault Act) medical benefits from another policy. In such a situation, an insured party such as Landmark Dodge would not have been exposed to an excess claim for medical benefits because the other insurance policy would have paid unlimited medical benefits.”
Finding no factual issues in dispute and concluding Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court order granting Appellee summary judgment. See: Curry v. Estate of Thompson, 332 Pa.Super. 364, 366-367, 481 A.2d 658, 659 (1984).
JOHNSON, J., files a dissenting opinion.

. Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, 40 P.S. §§ 1009.101 et seq., repealed by the Act of February 12, 1984, P.L. 26, No. 11, § 8(a), effective October 1, 1984.