Download PDF - Goodmans

complaint, the defendants would not be required to relitigate their claim in
the liquidation proceeding and would be able to present evidence in support
of their claim in the Pennsylvania proceeding if the Commissioner’s
complaint in this court proceeding was dismissed.
Fanning v. Davne, M.D., 2002 Pa. Super. 45, 795 A.2d 388 (2002). Appellant, the
Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association
(“PPCIGA”), argued a jury reward received by the appellee should be offset by
the amount the appellee already received from his workers’ compensation
carrier, and the award should be molded to zero. The court noted that the
damages awarded to the appellee were for pain and suffering, not for the
medical bills or wage loss. The appellee’s pain and suffering caused by the
defendant was not covered by any other type of insurance. Therefore, the nonduplication
provision in the PPCIGA did not apply because the jury award was
for pain and suffering and not for medical bills or lost wages. Thus, PPCIGA was
not entitled to an offset and had to fulfill the obligations of the defendant’s
insolvent professional liability insurance company.
Kuether v. Loev, 51 Pa. D. & C. 4th 124, 2001 WL 113034 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001).
The court denied plaintiff’s petition to enforce settlement in this case where a
set‐off was required under the facts and law. The court distinguished this case
from McCarthy v. Bainbridge, 739 A.2d. 200 (Pa. Super. 1999) because this case
involved a setoff of amounts already received by plaintiffs under their health
insurance, which was specifically set forth in the statute. Whereas, McCarthy
involved life insurance not specifically set forth in the statute.
O'Neil v. Burnett, 263 Pa. 216, 106 A. 246 (1919). An injunction against an
insurance company in insolvency proceedings froze the assets of the company,
including funds later received by an agent even though the agent was unaware
of the injunction. The agent had no right to the money superior to that of
other creditors. An arrangement between the agent and the company
allowing the agent to set off a general agency account against the proceeds of
mortgages which the agent collected was made void by the insolvency
proceeding and the injunction.
Panea v. Isdaner, M.D., 2001 Pa. Super. 108, 773 A.2d 782 (2001). At issue was the
proper application of § 991.1817(a) (the non‐duplication of recovery provision,
hereinafter the “Provision”) of the Pennsylvania Property Insurance and
Casualty Guaranty Association (“PPICGA”) Act. There were multiple cases
involved in the dispute, the first two cases involved parties that reached a
settlement prior to trial. The third case involved a defendant’s insurer being
ordered into liquidation after a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, followed by a
granting of an offset. The court held that: (1) the Provision applied to unpaid
tort settlements reached prior to insolvency; (2) the Provision applied to causes
of action that accrued prior to the effective date of the Act; (3) the insureds
were not personally liable for the amounts offset under the Provision; (4) the
Provision can be applied in post‐trial proceedings to form the jury verdict; (5)
insured’s claim of a defense against a tort claim did not estop him from
asserting a setoff.
Price v. Pennsylvania Prop. and Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 2002 Pa. Super. 74, 795 A.2d
407 (2002). As individual plaintiffs, parents sought compensation for their
daughter’s incurred medical expenses in a negligence action. The doctors’
insurer was declared insolvent and the Pennsylvania Property and Casualty
Insurance Guaranty Association (“PPCIGA”) assumed its obligations. The
parents settled with PPCIGA and specifically agreed that the settlement was
intended to cover both present and future damages. PPCIGA argued it was
entitled to an offset of the monies the plaintiffs received from the parent’s
insurer. The court held since the parents demanded personal compensation in