Court Opinion

ID: 9767133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:11:00.430147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:28.818645
License: Public Domain

OLSZEWSKI, Judge,
concurring:
We respectfully concur in the result, but write separately. We would hold that section 1720 does not apply because the “action” at issue, the one in which appellee insurer has asserted its subrogation rights, is appellant’s slip-and-fall case against the parking lot owner and its maintenance contractor. This tort suit is not an “action[] arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle”; rather, it is an action arising out of the tortfeasors’ alleged negligence in maintaining a parking lot. For this reason, we would find that we need not address the question of whether appellant was “occupying” her vehicle when she fell.