Court Opinion

ID: 9694280
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:34:36.299691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:58.650494
License: Public Domain

DEL SOLE, Judge,
Dissenting.
I cannot accept the Majority’s conclusion that the trial court in this matter “exceeded the bounds of reason” and sought to “dismantle the legislative design” by yielding to “the force of sentiment behind the consumer protection arguments.” My review of the statutory provisions at issue leads me to conclude that the trial court’s decision, finding the limited tort waiver forms to be inadequate, was eminently reasonable, was a fair interpretation of the legislative pronouncements and was an appropriate implementation of the purposes behind these provisions.
The Majority finds that a § 1705 notice, which details the premium differential between a “limited tort” and a “full tort” option, is not applicable where the insured has made an original application for new insurance. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1705. It concludes that it is only to be applied to the renewal of existing policies occurring on or before July 1, 1990. It acknowledges that its ruling does not conform to significant consumer protection concerns, but states that such public policy issues cannot be considered “to the exclusion of the General Assembly’s explicit purpose and language.” There is, however, no explicit purpose provided in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1701 et seq., and the language of § 1705 requires insurers to advise their customers of the cost differentials of each option.
The Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. S.C.A. § 1701 et seq. “does not contain a statement of findings and purpose.” Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins., 370 Pa.Super. 51, 63, 535 A.2d 1145, 1151 (1988). To ascertain the motivation for the MVFRL and its particular provisions the *413courts have looked to the legislative history. A major consideration for passage of the MVFRL was the escalating costs of coverage and the increasingly high number of uninsured motorists. Id. The Majority writes that the amendments to the MVFRL, referred to as Act 6, which provide for the election of tort options, were designed to temper the rising cost of automobile insurance. While I don’t dispute that costs concerns were a major impetus to the amending legislation, it was not the only concern. It is apparent from the legislative discussions surrounding the passage of Act 6 that it was important to allow informed consumers to make choices about the insurance which would best suit their needs. Representative Hayden, one of the sponsors of Act 6, spoke to the members of the House and stated:
For the first time, I think, under the bill we will require more information be given to our constituents in understandable plain English. In fact, that plain English is spelled out in the bill. So before our constituents exercise a decision as to what kinds of coverages they are going to buy, they will be able to see now for the first time what their coverage limits are, what the various costs of those coverages are, and then what they are entitled to receive.
House Legislative Journal, page 211, February 7,1990.
To protect consumers by providing them with information about their options necessitates that they be informed about the costs associated with each choice. The goal of providing for an informed consumer is not in conflict with the equally important goal of making automobile insurance more affordable and more available. Both concerns were at work in the passage of Act 6.
The language of the statutory provisions makes it clear that at least one of the purposes behind the passage of Act 6 was to inform consumers about their options when choosing automobile insurance. The provisions of Act 6 call for two separate notices to provide consumers with adequate information. The first is found in § 1705, which provides the means by which a consumer is to be informed of the options, their costs and then the means to choose either option. Section (a)(1) requires that *414insurers are to notify their insureds of their two alternatives in writing 45 days prior to their first renewal. Section (a)(4) directs that this same notice be given to new customers when applying for automobile insurance. It specifically states:
Each insurer, prior to the first issuance of a private passenger motor vehicle liability insurance policy on and after July 1,1990, shall provide each applicant with the notice required by paragraph (1). A policy may not be issued until the applicant has been provided an opportunity to elect a tort option.
75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1705(a)(4).
The Majority ignores the language of (a)(4) and reads the notice requirements, which include pricing information, to apply only to existing policy holders who were renewing their insurance on or before July 1, 1990. A reading of the entire text of § 1705, however, makes it clear that the notices therein are to apply to renewals as well as to new policy holders. This is evident in the language of (a)(4) which speaks to notice “prior to the first issuance” of insurance. Id.
The Majority writes that the notice to be given to new policy holders is that described in § 1791.1. See 75 Pa.C.S.A § 1791.1 The language set forth in this section is designed to provide information to the consumer about the differences between the two tort options, but it does not contain a space for indicating the premium differential, as does § 1705. The § 1791.1 notice is to be given at the time of “application for original coverage ... and for every renewal thereafter.” 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1791.1(b). The Majority reasons that notice of the different costs is, therefore, not required for new policy holders. Although § 1791.1 does not provide for pricing information between the tort options, it remains necessary for insurers to provide that information under § 1705. As stated, § 1705(a)(4) directs that a 1705 notice be given to “applicants.” It, like § 1791.1, speaks directly to the notice requirements for new applicants, and demands that they be given the same notice, including pricing information, which is required to be given to “renewal” customers under § 1705(a)(1). Therefore, I believe it to be incumbent upon insurers to provide both the *415§ 1705 notice and the § 1791.1 notice to all those applying for automobile insurance coverage. To require anything less would be to ignore the provisions of § 1705(a)(4). Because a statute must be construed so as to give effect to all of its provisions if possible, and because the General Assembly is presumed not to have intended to include mere surplusage, Lukus v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 276 Pa.Super. 232, 419 A.2d 431 (1980), I believe it necessary to read the two sections together to mandate notice of the pricing differentials.
My view, which would affirm the action of the trial court, will provide protection to consumers by completely informing them of their choices and the costs associated with each, and will provide no costly burden on insurers who will be required to provide their customers and potential customers with information they have available, but now must place in writing. Because I believe this position best acknowledges the legislative intent as gleaned from the comments in the House and gives effect to the all the provisions of Act 6, I dissent.
BECK and ELLIOTT, JJ., join this dissenting opinion.