Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-5098 CivilGERALD W. HOGAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHARLENE HOGAN, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : WATKINS MOTOR LINES, : INC., JACK JORDAN and KENNETH ALLEN ROW, : Defendants : 94-5098 CIVIL TERMS IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. BEFORE HOFFER, P.J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, January 16, 1998, pursuant to the opinion filed this date, and after careful consideration of the parties' briefs, Defendants' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. is denied. By the Court, Delano M. Lantz, Esquire McNees, Wallace & Nurick 100 Pine Street P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 For the Plaintiffs Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto 10 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 For the Defendants GERALD W. HOGAN and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CHARLENE HOGAN, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : WATKINS MOTOR LINES, : INC., JACK JORDAN and : KENNETH ALLEN ROW, : Defendants : 94-5098 CIVIL TERMS IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT N.O.V. BEFORE HOFFER, P.J. OPINION HOFFER, P.J.: This case involves Defendants' Motion for Judgment N.O.V. The facts are as follows: Plaintiffs and Defendants were involved in an automobile accident in Cumberland County on May 2, 1994. Defendants admitted liability and a jury trial was held to determine the extent of Defendants' liability. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs for $280,000. From this amount, $35,000 was awarded to the Plaintiffs for past medical expenses. Defendants have filed a Motion for Judgment N.O.V. claiming that Plaintiffs are precluded from past medical expenses by Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1722. However, Plaintiff argues that this section does not apply to him because Hogan was not a Pennsylvania resident, his car was not registered in Pennsylvania, and Hogan was not eligible 94-5098 CIVIL TERM to receive benefits under Pennsylvania law. We now deny Defendants' motion. DISCUSSION There are several relevant sections under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code which apply to this case. 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1722 states: In any action for damages against a tortfeasor...a person who is eligible to receive benefits under the coverages set forth in this subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719 shall be precluded from recovering the amount of benefits paid or payable under this subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719. 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1722 (1996). Benefits set forth in this subchapter are found in Section 1711: "An insurer issuing or delivering liability insurance policies covering any motor vehicle of this type required to be registered under this title...registered and operated in this Commonwealth, shall include coverage providing a medical benefit in the amount of $5000." 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1711 (1996). Plaintiff is a resident of Texas. Texas law is in direct conflict with Pennsylvania law because Texas provides medical benefits of $2500 for personal injury protection coverage on a first-party basis without regard to fault. The insurer paying such benefits has no right of subrogation. Beyond this provision there are no other limitations under Texas law with regard to the recovery of medical 2 94-5098 CIVIL TERM benefits. Tex. Ins. Code Ann. Section 5.06-3. Based upon the above statutes and the following case law, the Court finds that Pennsylvania law does not apply to this case. The Pennsylvania Superior Court has found that the benefits in Section 1711 apply only to those cars registered and operated in Pennsylvania. Pugh v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co., 552 A.2d 708 (1989). In Pugh, the plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident in Pennsylvania; however, he was a resident of Maryland and his motor vehicle was registered in Maryland. At the time of the accident, Maryland law required minimum benefit coverage of $2500 for medical bills while Section 1711 required minimum medical coverage of $10,000. Plaintiff claimed that because the accident took place in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law applied and he should receive $10,000. Pugh, 552 ^.2d 708-09. The Superior Court said that Section 1711 has 'two requirements for determining an insured's entitlement to recover first party benefits: (1) the insured vehicle must be a vehicle of the type required to be registered and (2) the insured vehicle must actually be registered in the Commonwealth." Pugh, 552 A.2d 709-10. See also Boone v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 382 Pa. Super. 104, 554 A.2d 968 (1989). In the case at bar, Pennsylvania law is not applicable. None of the vehicles involved in the accident were registered in Pennsylvania, therefore Section 1711 3 94-5098 CIVIL TERM does not apply. Section 1722 applies only to those people able to receive benefits under Section 1711. Because Plaintiff does not fall under this category, Texas law applies and Plaintiff may collect damages attributable to past medical expenses, less the $2500 Hogan already received.