Court Opinion

ID: 9752492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:09:31.182745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:16.837872
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
concurring.
I am in complete accord with the reasoning of the majority opinion, and join therein. I write this concurring state*169ment in response to the dissent authored by Mr. Justice Kauffman. I believe that the position in the dissent, which has been well articulated, has a basic flaw which should be identified.
Mr. Justice Kauffman asserts, “liability of the employer is not the issue here.” P. 1070. No-fault coverage, although statutorily mandated, is no more than a contract of indemnity. The error of the dissent is that it has limited the concept of liability to that which arises from the negligent conduct of the insured. Liability also embraces obligations imposed by law, even though they are not associated with fault. The provision of the policy of insurance in question was intended to cover the liability of Shreiner Trucking Company created under the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.1
Any suggestion of a third party donee beneficiary contract is unrelated to the realities of the situation and establishes the type of fiction that is antagonistic to realistic dispute resolutions. It is not the role of the judiciary to define what in their judgment should be, but rather to meet our responsibility of clarifying that which the legislature intended. The merits of that legislative judgment must be left for the scrutiny of the public.

. No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489, No. 176, Art. 1, § 102; 40 P.S. § 1009.102 (Supp. 1979-80).