Dyer v. TravelersDyer v. Travelers
Undеr the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law is the Assigned Claims Plan insurer liable to a claimant where the claimant has obtained an arbitration award against the tortfeasor, but where the claimant has not released the tortfeasor? We find that the Assigned Claims Plan is not liable to the claimant and we affirm the trial court.
Dyer subsequently filed a complaint against The Travelers seeking recovery from the Assigned Claims Plan. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial judge granted The Travelers’ motion based on his conclusion that the arbitration award to Dyer extinguished The Travelers’ subrogation right. A motion for summary judgment is properly granted when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with 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.”
Dyer argues on appeal that she has not prejudiced The Travelers’ right of subrogаtion because the arbitration award is assignable to The Travelers. She also contends that the award represents only compensation for pain and
The Assigned Claims Plan Insurer’s right of subrogation is authorized by statute:
§ 1756. Subrogation
The Assigned Claims Plan or its assignee is entitled to recover, in accordance with the tort liability law оf this Commonwealth, reimbursement for benefits or coverages paid, loss adjustment costs and any other sums paid to an eligible claimant under this subchaрter.
Melendez
involved a claimant who, without the consent of the Assigned Claim Plan designee, obtained an arbitrаtion judgment against and executed a release in favor of the driver of the uninsured vehicle that injured her. The Superior Court concluded that
As in
Melendez,
the appellant in this case has obtained an arbitration award against the tortfeasors. Unlike Melendez, she has not executed a release in favor of any of the tortfeasors. She argues that because she can аssign the award to The Travelers, she has not “extinguished” Travel
Under the MVFRL the right to subrogation is the right of the insurer to stand in the shoes of the claimant and assert the claimant’s rights against the tortfeasor.
Daley-Sand v. West American Insurance Company,
In the instant case, Dyer procеeded without consent of The Travelers and The Travelers was therefore not in a position to assert Dyer’s rights. The Travelers had no control over any aspect of the proceedings which resulted in the arbitration award. • Appellant so prejudiced the Travellers’ right to subrogation as to extinguish it.
This result is consistent with the Commonwealth’s public policy of preserving the fund in the Assigned Claims Plan. “The Assigned Claims Plan was established to protect certain claimants who would otherwise be unprotected. Frustrating the subrogation rights of an ACP designated insurer would no doubt weaken the Plan.”
Melendez,
Appellant next contends that because the arbitration action sought damages only for pain and suffering, not economic loss, The Travelers’ right of subrogation to her economic claims is not prejudiced. She argues that The Travelers could step in and pursue her claim for economic loss. This argument is without merit.
The Report and Award of Arbitrators does not support Dyer’s assertion that the arbitrators awarded damages only for pain and suffering, and not for economic loss. Even if it did, Dyer, and therefore the Assigned Claims Plan, would be barred from pursuing dаmage for economic loss in a subsequent lawsuit. A final, valid, judicial determination on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars any future litigatiоn between the same parties on the same cause of action. It bars relitigation of issues raised, as well as issues that could have been but wеre not raised.
Noetzel v. Glasgow, Inc.,
Order affirmed.