Ducaji v. DennisDucaji v. Dennis
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Nix
Lead Opinion
OPINION
MONTEMURO, Justice.The issue presented by this case is whether passage of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law [“MVFRL”],
On July 27, 1987, appellant, Juleann Ducjai, was a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by appellee, Dawn Dennis. Ducjai and Dennis were involved in an automobile accident with Dennis’ co-defendant, Peter Tarvin,1 during which Ducjai sustained injury. At the time of the accident, Ducjai and Dennis were employees of the Y.M.C.A.’s Camp Kresge, and were traveling from camp to the Wilkes-Barre Y.M.C.A. at the instruction of the Camp Kresge’s director.
On June 30, 1989, Ducjai timely filed a Praecipe of Summons against Dennis and Tarvin. Ducjai filed her civil complaint on July 17, 1989, alleging that she sustained injuries as a result of Dennis’ and Tarvin’s negligent operation of their respective vehicles. Following various responsive pleadings, Dennis filed a Motion for Summary Judgment without opposition on March 30, 1992, in which she claimed immunity from liability in negligence because Ducjai was a co-worker who had-been injured in the course and scope of her employment.2 The trial court initially granted the motion, but subsequently vacated its order and permitted Ducjai to file a Brief in Opposition. On May 8, 1992, the trial court once again granted summary judgment in favor of Dennis, relying upon
Ducjai appealed to the Superior Court, which initially reversed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment and remanded the case to Luzerne County for further proceedings. Ducjai v. Dennis, No. 02042 Philadelphia 1992 (Superior Court Feb. 3, 1993) (Cirillo and Hoffman, JJ.; McEwen, J., dissenting). Ducjai, however, filed a Petition for Reargument which the Superior Court granted. The Superior Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the entry of summary judgment by the trial court after reargument. Ducjai v. Dennis, 431 Pa.Super. 366, 636 A.2d 1130 (1994) (Cirillo, J., concurring). On appeal to this Court, Ducjai argues that three sections of
Dennis, on the other hand, asserts that MVFRL does not generally supersede the Act. 77 Pa.S. § 72, 481(a).5 Dennis
Prior to the passage of the MVFRL, we held that Section 72 of the Act “clearly provides that a co-employee is immune from liability for his negligent act resulting in injury to his fellow employee.” Apple, 443 Pa. at 292, 278 A.2d at 483. See Sylvester, 286 Pa.Super. 225, 428 A.2d 653 (1981); DeLong v. Miller, 285 Pa.Super. 120, 426 A.2d 1171 (1981). For example, in the factually analogous case of Apple, the appellant was a passenger in an automobile operated by the appellee when they were involved in an automobile accident with a third party, appellee’s co-defendant. At the time of the accident, the appellant and appellee were co-workers employed as school teachers by Centennial Joint School System, and on their way to the classroom site.
The appellant was granted workers’ compensation benefits through Centennial System’s insurance carrier, but also filed an action in trespass for personal injuries against the appellee. The precise issue raised in Apple was whether the parties were in the “same employ” as used in
[T]he exclusivity clause of the Workmen’s Compensation Act,77 P.S. § 481 , reflects the historical quid pro quo between an employer and employee whereby the employer assumes liability without fault for a work-related injury, but is relieved of the possibility of a larger damages verdict in a common law action. The employee benefits from the expeditious payment of compensation but forgoes recovery of some elements of damages____“[T]he comprehensive system of substantive, procedural, and remedial laws comprising the workmen’s compensation system should be the exclusive forum for redress of injuries in any way related to the work place.”
Id. at 267, 612 A.2d at 424 (quoting Kuney v. PMA Ins. Co., 525 Pa. 171, 175-176, 578 A.2d 1285, 1287 (1990)).
In Hackenberg, 526 Pa. 358, 586 A.2d 879, we addressed the issue of whether the MVFRL or the Act prevails when an employee is injured within the course and scope of his employment in an automobile accident. Specifically, we examined whether
When we read Apple in conjunction with Alston and Hackenberg and note the absence of any “manifest intention” of the legislature that the MVFRL prevail over Section 72 of the Act, we readily conclude that Ducjai is precluded from recovering damages at common law for the alleged negligence of Dennis. However, Ducjai disputes such a conclusion, and marshals our decision in Selected Risks, 520 Pa. 130, 552 A.2d 1382, along with the Superior Court cases of Chatham, 391 Pa.Super. 53, 570 A.2d 509, and Ferry, 392 Pa.Super. 571, 573 A.2d 610, in her defense.
For example, in Selected Risks, 520 Pa. 130, 552 A.2d 1382, appellant insurance company issued a comprehensive insurance policy to a volunteer fire association, of which Thompson was a volunteer firefighter. The policy provided for uninsured motorist coverage. While driving to a fire, Thompson was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. Thompson received benefits pursuant to his workers’ compensation claim and, thereafter, filed a claim with appellant for uninsured motorist benefits. The issue on appeal to this Court was whether appellant could reduce the amount of uninsured motorist benefits by the amount of workers’ compensation benefits Thompson had received, based upon a contractual provision limiting liability.6 Id. at 141, 552 A.2d at 1387-1388.
We concluded that the contractual provision at issue was contrary to public policy, citing various rationales espoused by other jurisdictions. Id. at 142-143, 552 A.2d at 1388. Howev
Subsequently, in Chatham, 391 Pa.Super. 53, 570 A.2d 509, the plaintiff was injured by an uninsured motorist while driving a vehicle in the course of her employment. The plaintiffs employer carried uninsured motorist insurance on the vehicle with Aetna and the plaintiff was a named insured on two other uninsured motorist policies with State Farm. Id. at 54, 570 A.2d at 510. The plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits for her injuries, but also submitted a claim to Aetna for uninsured motorist benefits which Aetna denied. The issue on appeal to the Superior Court was whether the Workers’ Compensation Act took precedence over the MVFRL, precluding the plaintiff from recouping uninsured motorist benefits through her employer’s insurance policy with Aetna. Id. at 57, 570 A.2d at 511.
Relying on Selected Risks, 520 Pa. 130, 552 A.2d 1382, the Superior Court held:
[T]he MVFRL can be interpreted to sanction, in graphic terms, the Legislature’s condonation of a claimant/employee’s right to secure both workmen’s compensation and uninsured motorist benefits resulting from work related injuries.
We read [Selected Risks ] to approve the payment of claims for benefits originating, and subject to obtainment by a claimant, through the workmen’s compensation scheme of recovery and the uninsured motorist policy obtained by an employee’s employer.
Chatham, 391 Pa.Super. at 59-60, 570 A.2d at 512-513 (citations omitted). See Ferry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 392 Pa.Super. 571, 573 A.2d 610 (1990). Henee, the plaintiff was entitled to a double recovery of benefits.
Second, the holdings of Chatham and Ferry create only a narrow exception to the employer exclusivity provision of the Act,
Moreover, the repeal of
these changes in the law were intended by the legislature to proclaim the supremacy of the [Act’s] exclusivity provision and to reaffirm the principle that an employee may not seek double recovery for a work-related injury. The legislature has tried time and again to make it clear that worker’s [sic] compensation benefits are to be the exclusive remedy foremployment-related injuries, save for those intentionally inflicted. Given the legislative treatment of the entire concept of worker’s [sic] compensation, we cannot find any reasonable basis for concluding that the legislature intended to repeal [Section] 72 of the [Act] by inference. Had the legislature intended to expand the remedies available to an employee injured in a motor vehicle accident, we believe it would have expressed that intent clearly (by including it in its recent amendments) rather than sub silentio.
Ducjai, 431 Pa.Super. at 379, 636 A.2d at 1137.
Finally, we examine the foregoing in light of our standard of review for a grant of summary judgment:
Summary judgment is properly granted where ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law’---- ‘The record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party’____ Summary judgment may be entered only in those cases where the right is clear and free from doubt.
Pennsylvania State University v. County of Centre, 532 Pa. 142, 144-145, 615 A.2d 303, 304 (1992) (citations omitted). Because there is no genuine issue of material fact, we find that summary judgment in favor of Dennis was appropriate.
Accordingly, we hold that an employee may not recover both workers’ compensation benefits from her employer as well as damages at common law from her co-employee under the MVFRL, when injured in an automobile accident during the course and scope of her employment. The entry of summary judgment in favor of Dennis is affirmed.
CAPPY, J., files a concurring opinion in which Justice FLAHERTY, J., joins.
MONTEMURO, J., is sitting by designation.
Notes
. Peter Tarvin did not submit a brief in this matter.
. In her brief, Ducjai complains that no workers’ compensation referee ever finally adjudicated that her injuries were work-related, and, hence, she is still entitled to pursue damages through a traditional negligence action. Brief of Appellant at 12. Ducjai‘s argument is frivolous, and her reliance on Kohler v. McCrory Stores, 532 Pa. 130, 615 A.2d 27 (1992), is incorrect.
. Section 72. Liability of fellow employee
If disability or death is compensable under this act, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such disability or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person disabled or killed, except for intentional wrong.
. The statutory sections read, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) General Rule. — Except for worker’s compensation, a policy of insurance issued or delivered pursuant to this subchapter shall be primary. Any program, group contract or other arrangement for the payment of benefits such as described in section 1711 . . . 1712(1) and (2) . . . or 1715 . . . shall be construed to contain a provision that all benefits provided therein shall be in excess of and not in duplication of any valid and collectible first party benefits provided in 1711, 1712 or 1715 or workers’ compensation.
Section 1720. Subrogation
In actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to workers’ compensation benefits, benefits available under [section 1711, 1712, or 1715] or benefits paid or payable by a program, group contract or other arrangement whether primary or excess under
(repealed 1993 insofar as it relates to workers’ compensation payments or other benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act).
The coverage required by this subchapter shall not be made subject to an exclusion or reduction in amount because of any workers’ compensation benefits payable as the result of the same injury.
(repealed 1993). See also
.
(a) The liability of an employer under this [Workers’ Compensation] Act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employees, his legal representatives, husband or wife, parents, depen dents, next of kin or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death____
. The policy reads as follows:
E. OUR LIMIT OF LIABILITY
1. Regardless of the number of covered autos, insureds, claims made or vehicles involved in the accident, the most we will pay for all damages resulting from any one accident is the limit of uninsured motorists insurance shown in the declarations.
2. Any amount payable under this insurance shall be reduced by: a. All sums paid or payable under any workers’ compensation, disability benefits or similar law.
Thompson, 520 Pa. at 141, 552 A.2d at 1387-1388.
. The legislature also repealed sections 1720 and 1722 of the MVFRL in 1993, insofar as they related to workers’ compensation.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
Although I agree with the result in this case, I believe the issue is not as intricate as set forth by the Majority. Simply put, the issue is whether Appellant is barred from seeking compensation from her co-employee, Appellee Dennis. The answer is clear under
If disability or death is compensable under this act, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such disability or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person disabled or killed, except for intentional wrong.
[Emphasis added]. Accordingly, under the so-called “co-employee rule” of § 72, Dennis,is not liable to Appellant. Apple v. Reichert, 443 Pa. 289, 278 A.2d 482 (1971); Sylvester v. Peruso, 286 Pa.Super. 225, 428 A.2d 653 (Pa.Super.1981).
Where I believe the Majority errs is in the way the Majority frames the issue: whether the MVFRL expressed a legislative intent to alter the law regarding an employee’s tort liability for injuries sustained by a co-employee.1 The Majority and the Superior Court below have equated this cáse to those involving
It must first be noted that
This conclusion is further borne out by scrutinizing the cases cited by the Majority which have examined the interplay between
The liability of an employer under this Act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employees . . .
That is quite different from the instant case. Although Appellant has received Workers’ Compensation benefits from her employer, she is also trying to hold her co-employee liable> and receive benefits under her co-employee’s personal policy of insurance. I believe this is a significant difference, and as noted above find that the Act answers the question without regard to what the MVFRL provides. In this case, there is simply no liability on the part of the co-employee in the first instance; the question of what damages Appellant may be entitled to under the MVFRL from the co-employee is therefore irrelevant. The legislature has made it clear that co-employees are not liable to one another,
FLAHERTY, J., joins in this concurring opinion.
. I acknowledge that this is the way the issue was framed in Appellant‘s petition for allowance of appeal, which was granted’ by this Court.
. For instance, if one employee injured another at work by the negligent use of machinery, the injured employee would be barred from suing the negligent employee, even though die negligent employee may be covered by some form of insurance (typically, homeowners’ insurance). In the typical case, we do not even consider any other insurance the negligent employee may have.