Court Opinion

ID: 9707004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:58:10.530486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:26.734977
License: Public Domain

Concurring Statement by
FREEDBERG, J.:
¶ 11 concur in the result reached by the majority. The decision to mold the verdict is mandated by 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1722 in accord with the analysis of the majority.
¶ 2 I do not agree that Johnson v. Beane, 541 Pa. 449, 664 A.2d 96 (1995) supports the molding of the verdict. That decision was premised on the fact that the court was “not dealing with a situation where the liability of a tortfeasor is being reduced.... ” Johnson, 664 A.2d at 100. Thus, it is distinguishable from the case before us because the trial court in the instant matter by molding the verdict reduced the liability of the tortfeasor. As noted by the majority in footnote 6, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that State Farm intends to pursue a subro-gation claim.