Download PDF - Goodmans

Fanning v. Davne, 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.
Vermont International Collection Service v. Vermont Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 555
A.2d 978 (Vt. 1988). The court held that the amount received from the solvent
insurer reduces the total claim but is not a direct credit against the Fund. The
claimant is entitled to recover from the Fund its unpaid loss.
Wyoming
Wyoming Ins. Guar. Ass’n v. Allstate Ins. Co., 844 P.2d 464 (Wyo. 1992). The
court held under the particular facts that the policy of the insolvent insurer was
“collectible insurance” (since covered by the Fund) and thus the permissive
user’s policy was only excess over any other “collectible insurance”.
Coverage By Multiple Funds
Montana Palmer by Diacon v. Montana Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 239 Mont. 78, 779 P.2d 61 (1989).
Payments made from the first Fund are a credit against the liability of the
second Fund to avoid double recovery.
Oklahoma
Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 832 P.2d 834 (Okla. 1992). If fund coverage
conflicts, if the claim is a worker’s compensation claim, then the state of
residence of the claimant controls.
Tax Exemption
Tax Exemption – In General
Maryland
Workmen’s Compensation Comm’n v. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Guar. Corp., 74 Md.App.
99, 536 A.2d 714 (1988). The State’s Subsequent Injury Fund levied an
assessment on an Association. The court held the Association was immune
from such levies because they were fees or taxes.
Immunity
Immunity – In General
California
Isaacson v. California Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 44 Cal. 3d 775, 244 Cal. Rptr. 655, 750 P.2d
297 (1988). One of the claims was for a violation of the Unfair Practices Act. The
court concluded there was no legislative intent to hold the Association liable for
a claim under the Act.