*2 ZAPPALA, C.J., CAPPY, CASTILLE, Before NIGRO, SAYLOR, NEWMAN and JJ.
OPINION *3 Chief Justice ZAPPALA. appeal
This presents multiple, foundational questions con- cerning application provisions of of Pennsylvania Prop- erty and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act in a setting involving insolvency of a former medical malprac- tice insurance carrier. 1992,
In Appellants, late L. Shirley Bell, and P. Thomas commenced a civil action asserting claims Appellees, Slezak, Joseph (col- A. M.D. professional and his corporation lectively, Slezak”), “Dr. and others. The central averments of complaint alleged malpractice medical part on the of Appellees during the course of Mrs. Bell’s treatment abdominal In conditions. negotiations settlement supervised pleas court, the common parties consummated an agreement pursuant to which $500,000 would Bells receive in exchange joint for amount, tortfeasor release. Of this $200,000 represented the limits of a policy malpractice insurance which Dr. Slezak maintained with PIC Insurance (“PIC”), $300,000 Group was to be the responsibility Pennsylvania Liability Medical Professional Catastrophe
336 Fund”).1 party not a (the Although PIC was “CAT
Fund was made with agreement Dr. Slezak’s agreement, furnished limits would be policy that the understanding clear Prior, funds, of settlement to the disbursement by the carrier. placing an order Court issued the Commonwealth liquidation provisions with in accordance liquidation PIC 221.1-221.63. Act, §§ 40 P.S. Department the Insurance part statutory obligations on the triggered certain order Such Guaranty Casualty Insurance Pennsylvania Property (“PPCIGA” Association”), to the pursuant or “the Association Guaranty As- Casualty Insurance Property and Pennsylvania appeal. subject of Act,2 primary which are sociation portion its insolvency, failed to tender PIC a result of the As statutory Although PPCIGA’s proceeds. of the settlement arising of certain covered obligations include insurers, see casualty property insolvency out of the $200,000; 991.1803(b)(1),it, too, provide refused to § P.S. recovery provision that under the it claimed 991.1817(a), prescribes Act, § which 40 P.S. this act claim under on a covered “[a]ny payable amount recovery under other any amount of by the shall be reduced paid by insurance,”3 expenses to offset medical it entitled was settlement, non-party as a the CAT Fund served to the 1. In relation Malprac- Services pursuant to the Healthcare carrier excess Act, (superseded). 40 P.S. §§ 1301.101-1301.1006 tice 1301.701(d) (superseded). amended, 1994, 1005, (as 12, P.L. No. December Act of Act”). 991.1801-991.1820) (the legislation su- “PPCIGA This §§ Guaranty Pennsylvania Association Insurance perseded the former (as amended 40 P.S. No. 232 P.L. Act of Nov. 1701.101-1701.605), enabling legislation for PPCI- which was §§ Guaranty Association Pennsylvania Insurance predecessor, GA's *4 ("PIGA”). recovery provision is as follows: non-duplication of 3. The full text of the policy shall be having an insurance Any person a claim under purposes right policy. For of his under such required exhaust first to section, include a claim policy shall under an insurance a claim insurance, first-party or whether it a any of under kind limitation, include, claim, and health accident without and shall insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield compensation, worker’s Any policies an insolvent insurer. coverages except for of all other insurer, Capital and Blue Shield. Blue Cross the Bells’ health $200,000 Further, and thus also payments since such exceeded took the underlying policy, PIC PPCIGA the limits part payment on its to was any obligation that make position extinguished. settlement, seeking to enforce the petition
The Bells filed $200,000 was contending that Dr. Slezak in that did not responsible the event PPCIGA contribute opposed petition, emphasizing Dr. PIC’s funds. Slezak settlement, funding which he contemplated role terms per enabling its statute. contended was assumed that entitlement to invoke the non- He contended PPCIGA’s recovery provision present in the circumstances duplication Court, open pending was an issue before the Commonwealth agreement against of the him enforcement settlement since, alia, inequitable inter had all would be he tendered required premiums to PIC and the CAT Fund and was an resulting victim” of the circumstances PIC’s “innocent liquidation. granting petition, pleas
In on the Bells’ the common relief noted, court preliminarily, PIC was neither named party correspon- civil action nor the Bells’ referenced reflecting parties’ ap- dence settlement. The court then plied principles conventional contract to conclude that agreement fully was a one and valid remained enforceable Thus, insolvency. although acknowledging after PIC’s parties’ awareness of PIC’s as Dr. insur- involvement Slezak’s er, common pleas simply court did not deem this aware- disposition petition, particular- ness be material its ly parties where the had not memorialized intention that obligation Dr. should present Slezak be relieved his settlement funds in the event that his insurer became insol- In effectively weighing vent. the circumstances of the case in statute, express policy view of the court the PPCIGA explained as follows: payable amount on a covered claim under this act shall be reduced recovery any the amount under other insurance. 991.1817(a). *5 ... argues purpose
The that the statute’s of avoid- defense to ing policyholder financial loss as result of the insolvency of an insurer would be if the frustrated provisions apply agreement. did not to the settlement However, in a an situation where either innocent claimant or policyholder stands to suffer a financial loss as a innocent insurer, insolvency policyholder result of the of an it is the plaintiff relationship that should bear the loss. had no with the now insolvent insurer and had no reason in the preparation agreement, attempt of the settlement protect insolvency from themselves the insurer. The in protect result referred to must occur order to at least one (claimants protected policyholders) member of class suffering any way public from financial loss. In this policy expressed attempting protect the statute of financial insolvency claimants from loss as a result of the an insurer will be carried out. opinion Additionally,
Trial court
at 12-13.
since the Bells
non-parties
respect
relationship
were
with
to the contractual
PIC,
Dr.
pleas
between
Slezak
the common
court ex-
pressed doubt as to whether the Bells were “claimants” for
PPCIGA,
purposes
such that
of recov-
ery provision
implicated by
was even
virtue
their health
991.1817(a).
recovery.
insurance
appeal,
Superior
On Dr. Slezak’s
an en banc
Court consid-
conjunction
with two
involving
ered the matter
other cases
issues,
Isdaner,
overlapping
Panea v.
No. 3677 Phila.
and Baker v.
No. 642 E.D.
Myers,
and reversed. See
Isdaner,
(Pa.Super.2001). Rejecting
Panea v.
In this
set
Thus, we must
Superior
made before the
Court.
were
Assembly’s
promulgating
in
determine the General
intent
Panea,
(Del
recovery
duplication
provision. See
341 provisions parties of the Act which the various PPCIGA disparate meanings. largely facts are attribute Since the undisputed questions and us primarily the issues before are law, Products, our A-Best plenary. Phillips review v. (1995). 1167, 1170 Pa.
As has Superior explained, Court PPCIGA is unincorporated obligations in association vested with remedial property casualty circumstances which licensed and insur (describing §§ ers are deemed insolvent. See 40 P.S. 991.1801 purposes including “[provision PPCIGA’s as a means for of] payment claims property covered under certain casualty policies, delay [avoidance insurance excessive of] of such claims and loss [avoidance of] financial claimants or policyholders insolvency a result of the of an insurer”), id. 991.1803. See v. generally Sands PIGA 217, 221, (1980) Pa.Super. A.2d (discussing statute). predecessor PPCIGA Act’s obtains funding PPCIGA satisfy obligations collecting insolvent insurers monies from all companies property insurance that write casualty in the insurance Commonwealth. See 40 P.S. 991.1803(b)(3), § 991.1808. Under circumstances arising from PIC’s insolvency, ordinarily pay would assume ment of an insolvent insurer’s obligations arising from claims policies insureds, made under the insurance of its see 40 P.S. 991.1803(b)(1), subject to limitations embodied the PPCI See, 991.1803(b)(1)(B) Act. GA e.g., (establishing a $300,000 “per cap claimant” on obligation to pay PPCIGA’s claim). covered Under the also PPCIGA is “deemed the insurer to obligation the extent of the on the covered claims duties, and to such rights, obligations extent shall have all as if insolvent insurer had not the insurer become *8 991.1803(b)(2). insolvent.” See 40 generally P.S. Done gal 295, 300-01, Mut. Ins. 528 Long, 1124, Co. v. Pa. 597 A.2d (1991); Co., 1127 Matusz v. Safeguard Mut. Ins. 340 Pa.Su 116, 118-19, (1985). per. 868, A.2d 489 870 Accordingly, legal PPCIGA assumes certain obligations defense connec with against tion insureds of insolvent insurers. See 40 991.1803(b)(1).
342 and its from a predecessor were derived
The PPCIGA 221, Sands, model, Pa.Super. 283 at 423 uniform law. See particularly as the areas Significantly, applied A.2d model non-duplication recovery, law of exhaustion and being plagued multiple frequently has been described See,, apparent e.g., inconsistencies. New ambiguities and Frialator, Inc., Pitco 142 N.H. Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Hampshire (1998).5 573, 1190, example, For 705 A.2d 1192-93 non- under has been construed duplication provision review differ Piteo, Compare, e.g., 705 A.2d at ently many jurisdictions. plain (concluding that both an insured and a 1193 purposes for of a of recov tiff are “claimants” v. and Cas. ery provision), Property with Insurance Comm’r (1988) 458, 518, (holding 313 Md. 546 A.2d 463-64 Corp., Ins. claimants). only operation obviously Its is insureds are straightforward in in which claimant and instances most entity, person example, insured the same or where are insurer, insured has a claim his which driver circumstances, In nonduplication such becomes insolvent. operate will to restore the insured provision generally insolvency, been in' his position he would have absent insurer’s Note, shifting any generally to solvent insurers. See loss Insolvencies and Insurance Company Guaranty Insurance Clause, A 74 Nonduplication Recovery Funds: Look at 1989). (May application L.Rev. 927 is somewhat Iowa complex, claimant and more where the asserted (or entities) persons potentially different with policyholder are conflicting interests. Benoit, Insolvency v. 723 A.2d
5. See also Rhode Island Insurers' Fund 303, (R.I.1999) ("we agree jurisdictions that have held that 307 with ambiguous contradictory,' language 'the [and] is if not '[t]he " (citations phrases confusing' interrelationship of the clauses and Ass’n, 442, omitted)); 915 v. Nevada Guar. 112 Nev. P.2d Cimini Ins. 279, (1996) (describing guaranty act clause as "nei 282 exhaustion craft”) clarity exemplar nor an of the draftsman's ther model of Herder, Guaranty Property (quoting & Ins. Fund v. 156 Cas. Arizona 203, 519, (1988)); 523 International Collection Sen. v. Ariz. 751 P.2d Ins., 978, (1988); Property & Cas. Vt. 980 Vermont Co., Guaranty McKinstry Wash.App. Washington Ass'n v. Ins. (1990). P.2d *9 In considering such paradigms, begin we with a central aspect of recovery provision, namely, concept of a “covered claim.” The PPCIGA Act defines as, covered claim inter alia: claim,
an unpaid including premiums, one for unearned claimant, submitted which arises out of and is within coverage and is subject applicable to the limits of an policy insurance to which applies this article issued insurer if such insurer becomes an insolvent insurer after the effective date of this article.... 991.1802(1).6 §
40 P.S.
In
involving multiple
cases
tiers of
claimants,
potential
controversy
concerning
arises
which may
possess
be deemed to
claims.”
In
“covered
the medical
malpractice setting, therefore, a threshold issue is whether the
term refers to
insured-physician’s
potential claim against
pursuant
policy
its
with an
malpractice
insolvent
carrier, or to a claim brought by
patient-plaintiff
physician,
such as the case here. Jurisdictions are divided
concerning
question.
See supra. Having surveyed the
approaches, however, we
persuaded by
are
assessment
Hampshire
Piteo,
New
Supreme
Court
claimant”), it also that both first- and plainly contemplates but may claims. exam possess claimants covered For within of “covered ple, includes the definition the PPCIGA 991.1802, premiums, claim” claims unearned see Further, obviously reposited which are the stat insureds. *10 “any first-party from such expressly ute excludes definition [$25,000,000],” worth claim an insured whose net exceeds id., negative that insureds suggesting, by implication, thus category will at least in some circumstances have outside this explicit reference claims. enactment also makes covered claims, 991.1817,conveying § to the Gener third-party of Assembly’s appreciation significance al of the the relevant desirability of differentiation be express distinction and claims differential treat third-party tween first- and where of import, cognizance ment is Of additional intended. is of consistent with the broad definition third-party legislation. and of the purposes claim” the remedial “covered PIGA, 137, Porter v. 75 F.3d 141-42 generally H.K. Co. (3d Cir.1996).7 first-party third-party that both and
Having determined
may possess
purposes
“covered claims” for
of the
claimants
Act,
obligations
nature of
we next consider the
PPCIGA’s
it
funding
claim since
is
claim for
of
relation to the Bells’
their
here.
the settlement that is at issue
regard,
initially,
agreement
In
we note our
with the
this
funding
are not
to
Superior Court
the Bells
entitled
direct
of
from Dr. Slezak and that
so conclude
the settlement
interplay
of
“ignore[s]
litigation
the economic realities
v.
coverage
process.”
of
in the
Panea
insurance
settlement
earlier,
Isdaner,
Additionally,
773 A.2d at
as set forth
789.
logically
that “it
be
aptly
the court
noted
cannot
denied
Health,
Recently,
Pennsylvania
v.
in Main
Inc.
Med.
Liab.
Line
Prof'l
Fund,
curiam,
(Pa.Cmwlth.1999),
per
Catastrophe
d
We possesses rights PPCIGA all if insolvent insurer as that insurer had not become insolvent. 991.1803(b)(2). Moreover, 40 P.S. we are aware Pennsylvania, a party third to an contract possess- insurance ing a claim against the insured has no general right of action against 22, 24, the insurer. Folmar v. Shaffer, Pa.Super. (1974) (“The law is settled that ‘in the policy absence of a or a provision right statute on which such may predicated, person may directly be not maintain a suit against judgment the insurer to on a recover rendered ” (citations omitted)). Therefore, the insured.’ in ordinary circumstances, basis, statutory absent a an insurer would have obligation no pay third-party noted, claims as such. As specifically provides statutory PPCIGA basis for third-party beneficiary claims such as the Bells as specifically the Act contemplates third-party beneficiaries as claimants thereunder. possess covered
Having concluded that the Bells is a basis Act and that there pursuant claim to the claim, now turn to the on such we obligation for PPCIGA’s recovery provision of the Act to determine non-duplication of states, provision' may offset the claim. This if PPCIGA part: relevant
(a) policy a claim an insurance Any person having under such right first his under required shall be exhaust section, of this a claim under policy. purposes For any a claim under kind of policy shall include insurance claim, insurance, first-party it is a or whether limitation, include, accident and health without and shall insurance, and compensation, Blue Cross Blue workers’ policies for of an coverages except all other Shield on a covered claim Any payable insurer. amount insolvent any amount of this act shall be reduced under insurance. recovery under other 991.1817(a). is entitled to offset its provision, Pursuant to this claim “the amount obligation pay the Bells’ covered insurance,” which the Bells received. any recovery under other $200,000 Here, payments in excess the Bells received insurer, Capital Blue Cross Blue their medical health Thus, than greater an amount as the Bells received Shield. policy Dr. insurance with PIC Insurance the limits of Slezak’s $200,000, obligation Group, which was PPCIGA’s extinguished. claim was on the Bells’ covered purpose is consistent with the stated This result policyholders to avoid financial loss to claimants which is *12 insurer. insolvency of of an as a result the 991.1801(1). Court, Moreover, Superior as observed occurred, it can said to have is solvent any “if loss be claims under the other source paid plaintiffs’ who insurers insurance, requires Act to be exhausted first.” which the Isdaner, correctly court Panea v. 773 A.2d 791. As the points out Act clearly attempts protect policyholders
The both against policyholders those with claims from the conse- insolvency quences by establishing the insurer association, purpose compensate of which is to the sole those who paid have which have not been because the company insurance is insolvent. association is funded insurers, by assessing all and every fee member required insurer is to be a member as a condition of its authority property casualty policies. to write (b)(3), 991.1803(a), manner, §§ and 991.1808. In this risk of insolvency any loss due one insurer is spread companies out over all member insurance their effect, policyholders. every Id. at 991.1810. In time claim, pays every company member insurance paying part of claim. The Act therefore seeks to lessen the financial on industry by prevent- burden the insurance ing duplication recovery.
Id. at 790.8
Thus, only as funding the Bells’ source of for the settlement by way and, entered with Dr. Slezak is the PPCIGA obligation regard extinguished PPCIGA’s was by appli- cation of the of recovery provision found in the Superior affirm we Court’s decision. participate Justice EAKIN did not in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice a dissenting opinion SAYLOR files in which Justice joins. NIGRO previously, Superior
8. As noted
potential
Court considered the
subrogation
Capital
interest of the Bells’ health insurance carrier
Blue
regard
Cross and Blue Shield in this
and concluded that such interest
was foreclosed as it was derivative of the Bells’ interest. The court
subrogee
greater rights
noted that a
no
has
than those held
thus,
subrogor,
subrogee
recovering
subrogation
is limited to
subrogor
paid by
amount received
relative to the claim
Isdaner,
subrogee.
(citing
Panea v.
The terms of the PPCIGA reflect an effort to a create statutory claims administration process spread to the loss to insolvency attributable insurer from policy- claimants and segment See, holders to a broader public. e.g., §§ Notably, 991.1801-991.1820. legislation contains no ref- to, and no attempt govern, erence to litigation the outcome of among prospective claimants outside the administrative set- ting particular, solely distinct, it is in the context of the —in process administrative claims that of re- covery provision at issue here has on relevance its terms. See Isdaner, generally 782, Panea v. 773 A.2d 798 (Pa.Super.2001) (Todd, J., dissenting) (observing, in response Superior to the majority’s Court assertion that Dr. opposition Slezak’s to merely was his assertion of a statutory right extinguish his obligation claim, on entitlement, that such may exist, where it expressly is vested in PPCIGA and not with a defendant-physician).
Although, as all agree, Justices both the Bells and Dr. Slezak were entitled to assert covered claims under the PPCI- GA it is important to recognize also Legislature substantially obligations restricted PPCIGA’s in relation to covered parties claims of third Bells, such as the since PPCI- possesses GA rights all of the insolvent insurer as if that insurer had not 991.1803(b)(2). become insolvent. See 40 P.S. In Pennsylvania, a party third to an pos- insurance contract sessing a against claim the insured has no general right of against See, action the insurer. e.g., Folmar v. Shaffer, 232 22, Pa.Super. (1974) (“The law is settled ‘in absence a or policy provision statute on which such right may predicated, be person may not maintain a suit directly against the insurer to judgment recover on a legislative as a result of efforts to balance or competing accommodate
policies and interests.
”
omitted)).2
(citations
There
insured.’
rendered
here,
presented
such as are
fore,
ordinary
in
circumstances
claims as such.
pay third-party
obligation
no
has
(3d
PIGA,
137, 142 & n. 5
Porter Co. v.
75 F.3d
H.K.
Cf
Cir.1996)
part
to third-
obligations on PPCIGA’s
(recognizing
action stat
Pennsylvania’s direct
pursuant
claimants
party
insolvency not
involving
ute,
in circumstances
insured).3
defense,
This
insurer, but also of the
only of the
to a
to PPCIGA
relation
obviously not available
insured,
predi
maintained a
who
of the insolvent
policyholder
Accordingly,
relationship.
(first-party)
cate contractual
claim of
case,
recognized that the covered
it should be
present
obligation
has the
claim that PPCIGA
only
is the
Dr. Slezak
,
payment.4
consider
statutory role
with PPCIGA’s
position comports
This
insol-
(or
void created
a carrier’s
ameliorating)
filling
character of the insolvent-insured’s
accords with the
vency,
complexities
liabilities,
many
conceptual
and alleviates
*15
has identified
of cases. Since PPCIGA
in this line
presented
provision
have
policy
would
that a statute or
The Bells do not contend
2.
PPCIGA; indeed,
against PIC or
direct claim
them to assert a
entitled
they
claim.
they emphasize that
made no such
their brief
provides
specifically
Act
the
majority
that "the PPCIGA
The
states
3.
beneficiary
as
Bells[’]
claims such as the
statutory basis for
contemplates third-party
as claimants
specifically
beneficiaries
the
regard,
Majority Opinion at 573.
In this
thereunder.”
991.1803(b)(2),
by
which
its
majority gives
account for Section
no
functions,
alia,
statutory
express,
limitation on PPCI-
as an
inter
terms
the insolvent
obligation
pay
claims to the extent that
covered
GA’s
right
deny payment. See 40 P.S.
possessed the
would have
insurer
991.1802(b)(2)
among
(listing
express powers of PPCIGA
§
obligation
its
on the
ability
the insurer to the extent of
to “be deemed
and,
extent,
rights,
have all
shall
[PPCIGA]
to such
covered
if that insurer had not
obligations of the insolvent insurer as
and
duties
insolvent”).
become
argument
reject
that related first-
regard, I
PPCIGA's
In this
would
necessarily
claim. The
constitute the same
third-party claims
and
conclusion, nor
it
support such a
is
does not
definition
light
enactment
in such manner
necessary to construe the
only
single
statutory machinery
requires
which
of PPCIGA
express
by making
regard
any overlapping claims
available
satisfaction with
See 40
which were available to the insured.
to claims
to it all defenses
991.1803(b)(2).
§P.S.
Slezak,
no
Dr.
recovery
collateral source
available to
recovery
provision
implicated
is not
simply
in relation to his covered claim as the insured.
v.
DeVane
Cf
(1999) (“Whether
519,
622,
Kennedy, W.Va.
519 S.E.2d
policy
there exists another
of insurance
not
does
matter unless
it provides
coverage
collateral
for
claim
against
asserted
and, ultimately, against
the insolvent insurer
[Insurance
Association].”).
Guaranty
statute, therefore, operates
(the
claimant)
afford Dr. Slezak
policyholder
first-party
protection
the core
that is
purposes,
central to its
at the same
indirectly benefiting
(third-party
time
the Bells
claimants who
PIC)
possessed no
right
direct
action
providing
funding
the source of
to effectuate their settlement. This also
in conformity
with
express
aims of the PPCIGA Act. See
991.1801(1)
(identifying the avoidance of financial
policyholders”
loss to “claimants or
among
as
Act’s salu-
tary purposes). Since the
fully
settlement should thus be
funded, it should be
appro-
consummated
absence of some
PPCIGA,
priate
991.1803(b)(4),
contest
see 40 P.S.
there-
by alleviating
potential
of compromises
rescission
alluded to
Superior Court,
members
the en banc
see
Panea,
(Del
3;
inherent physi to insured obligations to avoid its efforts PPCIGA’s regarding upon based concerns as Dr. Slezak cians such him, at the same that are' remote to recovery duplication obligation to is endowed with the Association time generally J. interests. zealously physician’s defend the Associations, Insurance Guarantee Hartz, Jr., State Earnst (1992) clearly IGAs (positing “[t]he 22-Fall Brief and in the in the model acts the mandate abandoned have funds statute interpret guaranty statutes to various IGA insured”). broadly protect by costs. advantages are counterbalanced Certainly, these non-duplication of recognize I that a determination in a effectively operate does not vertical recovery provision potency in terms constrain- provision’s plane decreases Nevertheless, obligations.6 of PPCIGA’s ing the breadth concerning develop record attempted has not claim, subrogees may accept litigants a substantial settlement of a certainty. exchange It damages expediency for due reduction in therefore, litigant imposition represent for may, a substantial involuntary in the with an reduction to be faced such circumstances DeVane, 519 S.E.2d at compromise that was struck. proceeds of the Cf. uncertainties, ("in patently ... we find it unfair world of many undoubtedly these and plaintiff], who considered require [the making her decision to settle her lawsuit potential other outcomes defendants, voluntary against to sacrifice the and release her litigation[;][w]e find distasteful the her further and final resolution of all-too-real guaranty failure to account for this association’s] [state purpose protecting explicit potentiality given the Guarantee Act’s insurers.”). Particularly as a policyholders of insolvent claimants and subrogation impede does remote plain interpretation of the statute not interests, the characterization of windfall to I would not attach bargain. plaintiffs’ preservation of the benefit of mere PPCIGA, suggestion reject, of Dr. Slezak I would 362, 369, Lines, Inc., Valley Pa.Super. citing v. to Burke (1992), meaningless by provision is rendered that the liability. wholly the insured from interpretation that does not insulate recovery provision plainly operates to relieve possessed by with responsibility of claims those PPCIGA of right the insolvent insured who also claim or of action a direct recovery; regard, provision in this possess a collateral source Therefore, light and in salutary purposes of the statute. serves the also Assembly's to afford PPCIGA all defenses decision of the General claims, I do not insured in relation to covered available to the insolvent controlling. arguments Burke relative to find the
353 degree reading the to which such affects the fiscal soundness scheme; moreover, ill judicial process of the the is suited to considerations of these kinds. See On the infra. presented, in in employed record view the terms crafting say Legislature I cannot the PPCIGA particular did not intend to strike the balance between the befalling pooled casualty burden property resources insurers and collateral source insurers that results from a plain reading of the statute. reject final which to consideration causes me the con opinion favoring majori
struction
affirmance is that the
ty is
fill
simply required
many
large gaps
too
and too
in the
framework,
solidify
principal
statute
order to
its envisioned
ly in
absolving
terms of
from liabilit
defendant-physicians
y.7 An alteration of
magnitude
substantive liabilities of such
judicial
has substantial
throughout
pro
collateral effects
cess, as the
Superior
observations
the en banc
Court
pleas
reflect,
dissent and
common
court
and is therefore
suited,
the kind of
change
substantive
better
least
instance,
first
consideration of
Assembly.
the General
Herdrich,
211, 221, 120
generally Pegram
v.
530 U.S.
S.Ct.
2143, 2150,
(2000)
My primary difference
furthering
the
of the PPCIGA
operative provisions
by creating an alternative source of
salutary aims
statute’s
policy-
to claimants and
to
the overall loss
funding
ameliorate
private
of
insurers —the
occasioned
insolvencies
holders
law tort
says nothing
extinguishing
about
substantive
statute
(Todd, J.,
Panea,
dissenting)
Thus, justification applying I find the non- insufficient duplication recovery provision remotely recovery to offset (or settlements) by plaintiffs on tort claims related asserted against I under state law the insureds of insolvent insurers. acknowledge interpretation enabling that PPCIGA’s of its Nevertheless, is to weight. statute be afforded substantial I controlling here conclude that the statute terms are clear, adequately sufficiently of action PPCIGA’s course' mandate, beyond far the bounds of its contrary to warrant the interpretation.
Accordingly, I would hold that the PPCIGA Act neither bars the Bells’ claims Dr. Slezak nor forecloses his them, liability and the recovery provision *19 does not relieve of its payment obligation relation to Dr. statute, Slezak’s covered claim. The effect of the therefore, should place be to the Bells and Dr. Slezak positions they occupied would have had PIC remained solvent. joins dissenting
Justice NIGRO opinion. design system put initial of the PPCIGA scheme can function as that practice present into marketplace. and future economic