The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-2036 Civil STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEPHANIE WALKER, AKA STEPHANIE WEAVER, DOUGLAS HOCKENBERRY, Defendants NO. 06-2036 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT HOCKENBERRY BEFORE OLER and GUIDO, JJ.1 OPINION and ORDER OF COURT OLER, 1., March 8, 2007. In this civil case, Plaintiff has sued Defendants as the result of events that allegedly occurred after an automobile accident and a payment by Plaintiff to Defendant Weaver of $1,156.99 for damage to Defendant Weaver's vehicle? Plaintiff s first amended complaint consists of counts for insurance fraud,3 unjust emichment4 and official oppression.5 F or disposition at this time is a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Hockenberry (hereinafter Defendant).6 No answer to the motion was filed by Plaintiff, nor did Plaintiff submit a brief or appear at oral argument on the motion. 7 1 EBERT, 1., did not participate in the consideration or disposition of this case. 2 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, filed July 17,2006. 3 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, count 1. 4 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, count 2. 5 Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, count 3. 6 Motion of Defendant Douglas Hockenberry for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed January 4, 2007. 7 Oral argument was held on February 28,2007. F or the reasons stated in this opinion, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings will be granted. DISCUSSION On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must view all of the opposing party's allegations as true, and only those facts that the opposing party has specifically admitted may be considered against the opposing party. We may consider only the pleadings themselves and any documents properly attached thereto. We may grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings only when there is no genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Parish v. Horn, 768 A.2d 1214, 1215 n.l (Pa. Commw. 2001), aff'd, 569 Pa. 45, 800 A.2d 294 (2002) (citations omitted). With respect to Plaintiff s claim for insurance fraud, it is noted that the claim is based upon Section 4117 ( a) of the Crimes Code,8 which provides III pertinent part as follows: A person commits an offense if the person does any of the following: . . . (2) Knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-insured, presents or causes to be presented to any insurer or self-insured any statement forming a part of, or in support of, a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim. (3) Knowingly and with the intent to defraud any insurer or self-insured, assists, abets, solicits or conspires with another to prepare or make any statement that is intended to be presented to any insurer or self-insured in connection with, or in support of, a claim that contains any false, incomplete or misleading information concerning any fact or thing material to the claim, including information which documents or supports an amount claimed in excess of the actual loss sustained by the claimant. 9 Under this statute, an "insurer" is defined as [a] company, association or exchange defined by section 101 of the act of May 17, 1921 (P.L. 682, No. 284), known as The Insurance Company Law of 1921; an unincorporated association of underwriting members; a 8 See Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, para. 15. 9 Act of February 7, 1990, P.L 11, ~2, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. ~4117(a)(2)-(3) (2006 Supp.). 2 hospital plan corporation; a professional health services plan corporation; a health maintenance organization; a fraternal benefit society; and a self- insured health care entity under the act of October 15, 1975 (P.L. 390, No. Ill), known as the Health Care Services Malpractice Act.IO A "self-insured" is defined as [a]ny person who is self-insured for any risk by reason of any filing, qualification process, approval or exception granted, certified or ordered by any department or agency of the Commonwealth. 11 Nothing in Plaintiff s first amended complaint would warrant a conclusion that Plaintiff is either an insurer or self-insurer as those terms are defined in the statute upon which her claim for insurance fraud is based. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as it relates to Count 1 of Plaintiff s first amended complaint will be granted. With respect to Plaintiff s claim for unjust emichment, the following principles of law are pertinent: Unjust Enrichment is an equitable doctrine. Under the doctrine, the law implies that a contract exists when a party is found to have been unjustly enriched; the doctrine requires the offending party to pay the plaintiff the value of the benefit he has conferred on the defendant. A party alleging that a defendant has been unjustly enriched must establish the following: (1) plaintiff conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant appreciated the benefit; and (3) acceptance and retention by the defendant of the benefits, under the circumstances, would make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without paying for the value of the benefit. Commonwealth ex rei. Pappert v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., 885 A.2d 1127, 1137 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2005) (citations omitted). In the present case, the facts alleged by Plaintiff do not support a conclusion that Defendant Hockenberry was himself the subject of emichment by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as it relates to Count 2 of Plaintiff s first amended complaint will be granted. With respect to Plaintiff s claim for official oppression, the claim is based upon Section 5301 of the Crimes Code.12 In D 'Errico v. DeFazio, 2000 PA Super. 10 Act of February 7, 1990, P.L. 11, ~2, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. ~4117(l) (2006 Supp.). 11 Act of February 7, 1990, P.L 11, ~2, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. ~4117(l) (2006 Supp.). 3 _, 763 A.2d 424 (2000), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that this criminal provision does not grant a private right of action for its enforcement. Consequently, Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings as it relates to Count 3 of Plaintiff s first amended complaint will be granted. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered:13 ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Hockenberry, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff s first amended complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Hockenberry. BY THE COURT, s/ 1. Wesley Oler, Jr. 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Stacy Garonzik 11 Oc West Vine Street Shiremanstown, P A 17011 Plaintiff Brett P. Zankel, Esq. P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 12 See Plaintiffs first amended complaint, paras. 19-20; Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, ~l, 18 Pa. C.S. ~5301. 13 Both Defendants have, in their answers to Plaintiffs amended complaint, raised serious issues as to the veracity of certain allegations in Plaintiff s pleading, including the allegation that Plaintiff was the operator of the vehicle she was in at the time of the accident in question. It is noted that Attorney Brett P. Zankel has been permitted, by Order of Court dated February 8, 2007, to withdraw his verification under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1024(c) to Plaintiffs first amended complaint, and Plaintiff was afforded a period of 30 days from that date to file her own verification. 4 Edmund Berger, Esq. The Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Weaver Steven K. Ludwig, Esq. Kelly A. McGrady, Esq. F ox Rothschild LLP 10th Floor 2000 Market Street Philadelphia, P A 19103-3291 Attorneys for Defendant Hockenberry 5 6 STACY GARONZIK, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW STEPHANIE WALKER, AKA STEPHANIE WEAVER, DOUGLAS HOCKENBERRY, Defendants NO. 06-2036 CIVIL TERM IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANT HOCKENBERRY BEFORE OLER and GUIDO, JJ. ORDER OF COURT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 2007, upon consideration of the motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by Defendant Hockenberry, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying opinion, the motion is granted and Plaintiff s first amended complaint is dismissed as to Defendant Hockenberry. BY THE COURT, 1. Wesley Oler, Jr., 1. Stacy Garonzik 11 Oc West Vine Street Shiremanstown, P A 17011 Plaintiff Brett P. Zankel, Esq. P.O. Box 266 Dauphin, PA 17018 Edmund Berger, Esq. The Berger Law Firm, P.C. 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Weaver Steven K. Ludwig, Esq. Kelly A. McGrady, Esq. F ox Rothschild LLP 10th Floor 2000 Market Street Philadelphia, P A 19103-3291 Attorneys for Defendant Hockenberry