Download PDF - Goodmans

assumed the obligations of Dr. Lucchino’s insolvent insurer. The medical
malpractice case settled for $35,000. PPICGA argued that its obligation should
be reduced to $29,308.15 to reflect an offset of monies that was paid on behalf
of the plaintiff’s health insurer. At issue was the non‐duplication of recovery
provisions of 40 P.S. § 991.1817. The court held that monies recovered by a
patient from his health insurance did not constitute an offset against the
amount payable by the PPICGA. It reasoned that the settlement monies
awarded to the plaintiff were for pain and suffering and not for his medical
expenses covered by his health insurer. Additionally, the plaintiff’s claim for
medical expenses had been withdrawn prior to settlement.
Corrigan v. Methodist Hosp., 234 F. Supp. 2d 494 (E.D. Pa. 2002). In a
malpractice action the defendant’s primary malpractice insurer was declared
insolvent and the Pennsylvania Property Insurance and Casualty Guaranty
Association (“PPCIGA”) assumed its obligations. The defendants asserted that
pursuant to the PPCIGA Act (“Act”) they were entitled to an offset for the
amounts paid on behalf of the plaintiff’s workers’ compensation carrier
covering the plaintiff’s employment. The court stated that the Act does not
intend to place a claimant in the same position they would have been had their
insurance company remained solvent. Instead, the Act creates a way by which
limited recovery can be had when no recovery could have been possible due to
the insolvency. Consequently, the court found that where a claimant receives
insurance benefits under workers’ compensation, a court may shape the verdict
by applying the offset provision.
Strickler v. Desai, 571 Pa. 621, 813 A.2d 650 (P2002). Dr. Desai was sued in a
medical malpractice action. The Doctor’s insurer was declared insolvent and the
Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (“PPCIGA”)
became obligated to cover the claims and defend the Doctor. After the
insolvency, the plaintiffs entered into and the court approved a settlement
between the parties. PPCIGA refused to fund the settlement because it would
allow the plaintiffs to get a double recovery. The plaintiffs demanded medical
expenses in their complaint, but later admitted they received medical expenses
from Aetna, their health insurer. PPCIGA claimed it was entitled to reduce the
amount of its obligation by the amount the plaintiffs received from Aetna, who
already paid medical costs in excess of the amount PPCIGA was obligated to
pay. Since Aetna already reimbursed the plaintiffs for medical expenses, PPCIGA
argued it would result in duplicate payments for the same expense. The court
determined that “[b]ecause [plaintiffs] sought medical expenses in the
complaint and settled all of the claims in the complaint, we deem the
settlement to include amounts attributable to medical expenses.” Id. at 631. The
court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that PPCIGA was entitled to offset the
amount of medical expenses Aetna paid from the amount of its liability.
Price v. Pennsylvania Prop. & 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
the negligence action, the medical expenses sought were also covered by the
settlement. Therefore, PPCIGA was entitled to an offset up to the amount
recovered from the parent’s insurer and to the extent the father had a claim for
coverage.