Court Opinion

ID: 9697489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:18:09.888411+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:32.965324
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
I agree with the result reached by the majority, for appellant was not acting as a volunteer when it paid the entire judgment; it had at least a duty to pay as a secondary insurer. See Dominski v. Garrett, 276 Pa. Superior Ct. 18, 419 A.2d 73 (1980).
Moreover, the equities, which are properly considered here since subrogation is based on equitable principles, are in appellant’s favor. Dominski v. Garrett, supra; Associated Hospital Service of Philadelphia v. Putsilnik, 262 Pa. Superior Ct. 600, 396 A.2d 1332 (1979). There were two insurance companies, appellant and appellee, only one of which was the primary insurer. Appellant believed it might have at least a secondary obligation, and appellee denied coverage altogether. In this situation, appellant paid the entire amount before its dispute with appellee was settled, rather than force the insured to go uncompensated in the interim. On these facts, the lower court found that appellant had acted as a volunteer when it paid the judgment because appellee was in fact the primary insurer. This result is clearly *95inequitable, for not only is appellee released from an obligation that was its primary responsibility, but appellant is penalized for good faith conduct that resulted in the insured being completely and promptly paid.
I therefore concur in the order reversing the order of the lower court.