Court Opinion

ID: 9700723
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:47:01.842436+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.134892
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
concurring.
I join the Majority in its determination that this appeal should not be quashed. Further, I join the Majority in its analysis that the Appellant, Motorists Insurance Companies, is the insurer responsible to provide the noneconomic loss benefits sought by Charles P. Ector, Appellee. I write separately only to express additional reasons for this view.
The Appellant argues that Ector is not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits because the vehicle which caused his injury was insured by it at the time of the accident. Admittedly, there was a policy of insurance covering the automobile when it was stolen and later injured Mr. Ector. However, for uninsured motorists purposes, the vehicle was uninsured. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 defines an uninsured motorist vehicle as follows:
“(1) A motor vehicle for which there is no liability insurance or self insurance applicable at the time of the accident.”
*469The policy issued by Motorists, which contained third-party liability insurance, does not provide coverage in this case. That policy provides under the liability exclusions:
“(a) We do not provide liability coverage for any person:
8. Using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that the person is entitled to do so.”
Even though there was a liability policy of insurance on the vehicle at the time of the accident, the unauthorized use of the vehicle means that it was not insured for liability purposes.
The next question is whether the assigned benefits plan carrier, Travelers, or the carrier insuring the vehicle, Motorists, has responsibility for the uneconomic insurance benefits. Had Mr. Ector been entitled to receive economic benefits, there is no question that he would have received those from the carrier insuring the vehicle. Both 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1713 titled “Source of Benefits” and the Motorists policy so provide. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1713 “Source of Benefits” states:
(a) GENERAL RULE.
Except as provided in § 1714 (relating to ineligible claimants), a person who suffers injury out of the maintenance or use of motor vehicle shall recover first party benefits against the applicable insurance coverage in the following order of priority:
(4) For a person who is not the occupant of a motor vehicle, the policy on any motor vehicle involved in the accident____
Also, endorsement Ulll 10-85 of the Motorists policy defines an insured for first party benefits coverage as: “INSURED” means:
1. You or family member;
2. Any other person:
a. while occupying your covered auto; or
*470b. while not occupying a motor vehicle if injured as a result of an accident in Pennsylvania involving your covered auto.
It is clear from both the statutory language and the policy provisions that Motorists is the benefits provider under the MVFRA. Further, it is clear that for the purposes of uninsured motorists coverage, there is no liability insurance available as a result of this accident involving a stolen, vehicle.
We must next determine whether the benefits provider is responsible for providing uninsured motorists benefits to an injured claimant and I agree with the majority that the answer is yes. My agreement stems from my view that the Majority properly analyzes and applies the cases of Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 496 Pa 215, 436 A.2d 621 (1981) and Prudential Insurance Co. v. Falligan, 335 Pa.Super. 195, 484 A.2d 88 (1984). In addition, further support for this view is found in the MVFRA. This act created an assigned claims plan for the payment of benefits to a person who otherwise would not be insured but who would qualify. 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1754 provides additional coverage to such persons making claims under the assigned claims plan and states:
An eligible claimant who has no other source of applicable uninsured motorist coverage and is otherwise entitled to recover in an action in tort against a party who has failed to comply with this chapter may recover for losses or damages suffered as a result of the injury up to $15,000 subject to an aggregate limit for all claims arising out of any one motor vehicle accident of $30.000____
The legislature in passing the MVFRA, codified case law expressed in Tubner and Prudential by mandating the assigned claims plan carrier provide uninsured motorist coverage. From this I conclude that the legislative intent is evident and it is that injured claimants in Pennsylvania who otherwise qualify under the Act, should receive both first party benefits and uninsured motorists benefits, if applica*471ble, from the carrier that is responsible for providing first party benefits.
To adopt the view advanced by the Appellant would create a class of injured claimants whose benefits would be limited below those which the legislature established.