Court Opinion

ID: 9754129
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:44:57.233818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:49.251347
License: Public Domain

Justice EAKIN,
concurring.
I join the Majority Opinion. I write separately as I believe there is an alternate avenue in which Appellant could bring his private cause of action. Section 1797(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law provides:
Appeal to court. — A provider of medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise or an insured may challenge before a court an insurer’s refusal to pay for past or future medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise, the reasonableness or necessity of which the insurer has not challenged before a PRO. Conduct considered to be wanton shall be subject to a payment of treble damages to the injured party.
75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(4). It is well-settled in Pennsylvania interest accrued on an overdue bill becomes a part of the bill *106itself. See Roos v. Fairy Silk Mills, 342 Pa. 81, 19 A.2d 137, 138 (1941). When a provider sends an insurer a bill for benefits and the insurer fails to pay it within 30 days as required by 75 Pa.C.S. § 1716, it becomes an overdue bill, and any accrued interest becomes a part of the bill itself. The insurer has refused to pay the full bill, and as § 1797(b)(4) authorizes an appeal before the courts to challenge an insurer’s “refusal to pay,” the remedy under § 1797(b)(4) is available. Therefore, I believe Appellant could bring his private cause of action under § 1797(b)(4).
Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring opinion.