Court Opinion

ID: 9753930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:35:28.635136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:45.239370
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
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 WL 579378, 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 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 *238is 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.