Court Opinion

ID: 9641858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:41:44.499091+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:40.318468
License: Public Domain

*259BECK, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the majority opinion that the estate’s claim for work loss benefits is not barred by the statute of limitations of the No-Fault Act 1009.106(c), but on a different basis.
The majority reasons that the last sentence of paragraph 1 of 106(c) allows the instant claim for work loss benefits because no-fault benefits have been paid for “loss arising otherwise than from death” (the $695 paid on December 5, 1978 for ambulance and hospital costs) and therefore a two year statutory limit runs from the December 1978 payment.
In Sachritz v. Pennsylvania Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 293 Pa.Super. 483, 439 A.2d 678 (1981) we held that post-mortem work loss benefits may not be covered by 1009.106(c) and may be subject, instead, to the general six year statute of limitations for contract actions. The claim was barred in Sachritz because some work loss benefits had been paid before death, and therefore the action was covered by the two year rule in that last sentence of paragraph 1 of 106(c). In Guiton v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co., 301 Pa.Super. 146, 447 A.2d 284 (1982) our Court allowed a claim for post-mortem work loss benefits that did not meet the two year limit. We held that since no work loss benefits had been paid before death (although funeral expenses, ambulance costs, and survivors losses had been paid before death) the six year statute governed.
Sandra L. Smiley claimed no work loss benefits before her death, and therefore the facts of her case are governed by Guitón. Since her claim is well within the six year limit, it must be allowed.