White v. Concord Mutual Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

White v. Concord Mutual Insurance

454 A.2d 982, 500 Pa. 103, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 703

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided December 30, 1982·No. 33 E.D. Appeal Docket, 1982·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice,

In Davis v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 500 Pa. 84, 454 A.2d 973 (1982), we held that a party injured in an automobile accident may not recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his own insurance policy where the responsible party has maintained liability insurance in at least the minimum amount required by Pennsylvania’s financial responsibility law. The question presented in this case is whether recovery should be permitted pursuant to an uninsured motorist clause where the responsible party has [105] the statutory minimum amount of liability insurance but where the claimant recovers less than that amount because of multiple claims against the responsible party’s insurance.

In Davis, we concluded that the plain meaning of the term “uninsured” forecloses the claim that a motorist who has a policy of liability insurance meeting the statutory requirements is “uninsured.” Here, although the responsible party was unable to pay the claimant the amount that he would have received had there been two or fewer claimants, the fact remains that, as in Davis, the responsible party had a policy of liability insurance which met statutory requirements. In light of the plain meaning of the term “uninsured,” we conclude that the Legislature did not intend that the “uninsured” status of the responsible party should vary according to whether the injured party is able to recover the statutory minimum amount. As we stated in Davis, “[our] Legislature has chosen not to require insurance coverage for those instances in which a tortfeasor’s insurance is insufficient to satisfy the injured party’s claims. . . . [T]his Court may not enlarge the scope of the plain meaning of the Uninsured Motorist Law to circumvent the Legislature’s judgment.”

Order of the Superior Court affirmed.

HUTCHINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which FLAHERTY, J., joins.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice,

In Davis v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 500 Pa. 84, 454 A.2d 973 (1982), we held that a party injured in an automobile accident may not recover under the uninsured motorist provision of his own insurance policy where the responsible party has maintained liability insurance in at least the minimum amount required by Pennsylvania’s financial responsibility law. The question presented in this case is whether recovery should be permitted pursuant to an uninsured motorist clause where the responsible party has [105] the statutory minimum amount of liability insurance but where the claimant recovers less than that amount because of multiple claims against the responsible party’s insurance.

In Davis, we concluded that the plain meaning of the term “uninsured” forecloses the claim that a motorist who has a policy of liability insurance meeting the statutory requirements is “uninsured.” Here, although the responsible party was unable to pay the claimant the amount that he would have received had there been two or fewer claimants, the fact remains that, as in Davis, the responsible party had a policy of liability insurance which met statutory requirements. In light of the plain meaning of the term “uninsured,” we conclude that the Legislature did not intend that the “uninsured” status of the responsible party should vary according to whether the injured party is able to recover the statutory minimum amount. As we stated in Davis, “[our] Legislature has chosen not to require insurance coverage for those instances in which a tortfeasor’s insurance is insufficient to satisfy the injured party’s claims. . . . [T]his Court may not enlarge the scope of the plain meaning of the Uninsured Motorist Law to circumvent the Legislature’s judgment.”

Order of the Superior Court affirmed.

HUTCHINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. LARSEN, J., files a dissenting opinion in which FLAHERTY, J., joins.

White v. Concord Mutual Insurance, 454 A.2d 982, 500 Pa. 103, 1982 Pa. LEXIS 703 (Pa. 1982).

Pincite

454 A.2d 982 (White v. Concord Mutual Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related