Zubris v. Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan

WICKERSHAM, Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority. I too would affirm the judgment entered by the Honorable Jojseph F. McClosky of the court below dismissing plaintiff | Zubris’s complaint. I do not concur in the reasoning adopted by the majority.

On January 13, 1976 appellant Mark Zubris was injured while riding as passenger in an automobile operated by one Michael Wallace. As a result of the accident Zubris sustained loss as defined in the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act1 including work loss and various allowable expenses. Subsequent to the accident Zubris *93learned that the Wallace vehicle was insured only for collision loss.

As “an individual authorized to obtain basic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan” Zubris notified the assigned claims bureau on August 7, 1978, more than two and one half years following the date of the accident.

Section 108(c)(1) entitled: “Time for presenting claims under assigned claims plan” reads as follows:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, an individual authorized to obtain basic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan shall notify the assigned claims bureau of his claim within the time that would have been allowed pursuant to section 106(c) of this act for commencing an action for basic loss benefits against any obligor, other than an assigned claims bureau, in any case in which identifiable no-fault insurance coverage was in effect and applicable to the claim.

40 P.S. § 1009.108(c)(1).

Section 106(c)(1) referred to hereinabove provides as follows:

If no-fault benefits have not been paid for loss arising otherwise than from death, an action therefor may be commenced not later than two years after the victim suffers the loss and either knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the loss was caused by the accident, or not later than four years after the accident, whichever is earlier.

40 P.S. § 1009.106(c)(1).

Taken together, notification to the assigned claims bureau by an individual authorized to obtain basic loss benefits through the assigned claims plan must be given in all events no later than four years after the accident, nor later than two years after the victim suffers the loss and either knows, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, that the loss was caused by the accident. Instantly, Zubris sustained personal injuries on the date of *94the accident, January 13, 1976, and began from that date accruing allowable expenses and work loss.2

‘Loss’ means accrued economic detriment resulting from injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle consisting of, and limited to, allowable expense, work loss, replacement services loss, and surviv- or’s loss.

40 P.S. § 1009.103.

Under the foregoing circumstances Zubris had to notify the assigned claims bureau within two years after suffering loss, which loss in the case sub judice coincided with the date of the accident.3

. Act of July 19, 1974, P.L. 489; No. 176, §§ 101 et seq., 40 P.S. §§ 1009.101 et seq.

. Zubris testified that he was taken from the scene of the accident to a hospital and immediately began accruing loss. Reproduced Record at 34-42.

. In Bond v. Gallen, 292 Pa.Super. 207, 437 A.2d 7 (1981) we considered the statute of limitations where an injured victim sued a third party tortfeasor; in Myers v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., 298 Pa.Super. 366, 444 A.2d 1217 (1982), we considered the statute of limitations where an injured victim sued his own no-fault carrier; in Williams v. Keystone Insurance Co., 302 Pa.Super. 44, 448 A.2d 86 (1982), we considered the statute of limitations where an injured victim timely notified the assigned claims bureau, was assigned a participating insurer and thereafter sued that insurer. In Platts v. Government Employees Insurance Co., 301 Pa.Super. 379, 447 A.2d 1017 (1982), we considered the statute of limitations where an injured victim received no-fault benefits from her own insurance company and later brought suit against such company to recover further benefits.