65 A.3d 916
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Hand, a City of Philadelphia police officer, was injured on Nov. 1, 2007 while on duty in a City-owned patrol car.
- The City (self-insured) and Erie Insurance provided PIP and UM/UIM coverage; Hand did not receive PIP or wage-loss benefits.
- Hand filed a writ of summons in 2011 and a complaint in 2012; the City and Erie filed 1028(a)(4) preliminary objections and the trial court dismissed the complaint.
- The issues centered on whether a self-insured employer must provide UM/UIM and PIP benefits, and whether policy exclusions preclude recovery.
- The court held Hackenberg forecloses UM benefits from a self-insured employer and joined issues about PIP and Erie’s exclusions, affirming the dismissal.
- Hand appealed, arguing Hackenberg should be overruled and that other authorities require different results for UM/UIM and PIP.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Self-insured employer UM benefits owed | Hand argues Hackenberg is wrongly decided and requires UM benefits. | City/Erie rely on Hackenberg to bar UM benefits from a self-insured employer. | Hackenberg controls; no UM benefits owed to Hand. |
| Underinsured motorist benefits by self-insured employer | Hand contends underinsured benefits should be available despite Hackenberg. | Hackenberg and Dyll preclude requiring underinsured coverage from a self-insured employer. | Dyll limits MVFRL requirements; no underinsured benefits obligated. |
| Regular use exclusion and Erie UM/UIM coverage | Regular use does not apply to a work-required vehicle fleet use. | Regular use exclusion precludes uninsured/underinsured recovery for work-use vehicle. | Regular use exclusion applies; Brink adopted, precluding recovery. |
| PIP benefits from a self-insured employer | Hand argues PIP may be sought from employer’s private carrier if workers’ comp exhausted. | IOP prohibits relying on Kilgallen; the trial court correctly deemed no PIP obligation. | Trial court correctly held no PIP obligation for self-insured employer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hackenberg v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 526 Pa. 358 (1991) (self-insured employers need not provide UM benefits; exclusivity of workers' comp applies)
- Dyll v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 586 A.2d 879 (Pa. 1991) (MVFRL does not require self-insureds to provide underinsured benefits)
- Williams v. GEICO, 613 Pa. 113 (2011) (regular use exception precludes UM benefits for police officer in course of employment)
- Brink v. Erie Ins. Group, 940 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super.2008) (regular use in fleet context adopted; use of multiple vehicles can be regular use)
- Kilgallen v. Liberty Mutual, 401 Pa.Super. 651 (1990) (unpublished memorandum decisions not citable under IOP; not controlling authority)
- Malinder v. Jenkins Elevator & Mach. Co., 538 A.2d 513 (Pa.Super.1988) (follow Supreme Court precedents to ensure predictability in law)