Court Opinion

ID: 9709743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:53:52.519633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.184110
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
Appellant Government Employees Insurance Company appeals from an order of the Superior Court reversing an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia which dismissed the petition of appellee Selwyn Chesler to compel the payment of “survivor’s loss” benefits under the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Act of July *29419, 1974, P.L. 489, § 101 et seq., 40 P.S. § 1009.101 et seq. (Supp.1983). Appellee is the mother of Barry Chesler, who was killed in an automobile accident while insured under a no-fault automobile insurance policy issued by appellant. Appellee, who has not shown that she was dependent upon her son, contends that she need not prove dependency in order to receive survivor’s benefits under the Act.
We hold that section 103 of the Act, 40 P.S. § 1009.103, requires a “child, parent, brother, [or] sister” of a deceased victim of an automobile accident to show dependency on the victim as a condition of eligibility for survivor’s loss benefits. See Midboe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 495 Pa. 348, 433 A.2d 1342 (1981) (O’Brien, C.J., joined by Roberts & Flaherty, JJ., in support of affirmance). Section 103 defines a “survivor” as a
“(A) spouse; or
(B) child, parent, brother, sister or relative dependent upon the deceased for support.”
As stated in Midboe, supra, “if the Legislature had intended that only [a] ‘relative’ need prove dependency on the deceased, it could have included ‘child, parent, brother or sister’ in subsection (A) with ‘spouse’.” 495 Pa. at 357, 433 A.2d at 1347.
The order of the Superior Court reversing the order of the court of common pleas which dismissed the petition to compel the payment of survivor’s loss benefits is reversed.
NIX, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
HUTCHINSON, J., files a concurring opinion.
LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion.