The National Association of Subrogation Professionals (NASP) has filed Amicus Briefs on the issues of Pro-Rata Reimbursement of Insured’s Deductibles and PIP Subrogation. WWR has long been a member of NASP. The following information has been provided by NASP.
The NASP Amicus Committee has been extremely busy and filed two briefs in January 2011. Both briefs addressed the importance of subrogation and the public policy advantages emanating from subrogation. The Amicus briefs were filed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
I. Jones v. Nationwide
The first brief was in the case of Jones v. Nationwide on appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 61 EAP 2010. The brief addressed pro rating deductibles in accordance with Pennsylvania Insurance Regulation, 31 Pa.Code, Section 146.8(c). Appellant (Jones) argues she was not reimbursed her full deductible, or rather “made whole,” by Nationwide. Jones carried a five-hundred dollar ($500.00) collision deductible on her automobile insurance policy. Nationwide reimbursed Jones four-hundred and fifty dollars ($450.00) from the subrogation recovery. In addition to the above “made whole” argument, Jones advocates (1) the Insurance Commissioner does not have authority to promulgate an insurance regulation allowing pro ration of deductibles and (2) the Insurance Regulation is void because it violates the common law “made whole” doctrine.
II. State Farm a/s/o Lenoir v. Soxman
The second brief was filed in the case, State Farm a/s/o Lenoir v. Soxman, on appeal to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. Mr. Lenoir was insured for PIP benefits with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company through a policy written and executed in the state of Delaware. Mr. Lenoir was involved in an auto accident in Pennsylvania with a Pennsylvania licensed driver. State Farm subrogated for Delaware PIP payments in a Pennsylvania court. Soxman argued the subrogation claim was barred in accordance with Pennsylvania law, 75 P.C.S., Section 1720.
The appeal addresses three issues: (1) a Pennsylvania “made whole” issue, (2) an interpretation of a Pennsylvania subrogation restriction and (3) a conflict of laws.
The results of these appeals are pending.