No. 1675 October Term, 1977, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action, Law, of Delaware County, at No. 76 -- 7132.
William F. Sweeney, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Michael A. Paul, Upper Darby, for appellee Brunelli.
John J. Baulis, Philadelphia, for appellees Farelly Brothers and Aviles.
Watkins, President Judge, and Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van der Voort and Spaeth, JJ. Spaeth, J., concurs in the result. Jacobs, and Watkins, former President Judges, and Hoffman, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 24]
On August 6, 1975, Frederick A. Brunelli, an employee of Cobb and Lawless, was injured in a collision with an automobile driven by Luis Aviles, an employee of Farelly Brothers. At the time of the accident, Mr. Brunelli was operating a motor vehicle furnished by his employer, within the scope of
[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 25]
his employment. A complaint in trespass was filed on August 27, 1976 by Fred A. Brunelli against Farelly Brothers and Luis Aviles. On December 14, 1976, CNA Insurance Company, the workmen's compensation insurer for Cobb and Lawless, filed a Petition to Intervene as Use Plaintiff, alleging subrogation rights (to the extent of workmen's compensation paid and payable) to any recovery by plaintiff from the defendants. The lower court denied the petition by order dated April 28, 1977, and CNA appealed to our Court, arguing that the lower court improperly ruled that the Pennsylvania No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act*fn1 implicitly repealed the subrogation provision of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act,*fn2 and also that the lower court improperly determined that the No-fault statute prohibits subrogation by a workmen's compensation carrier for money paid to an employee injured in an automobile accident while acting within the scope of his employment. Although the No-fault statute does not specifically prohibit subrogation by a workmen's compensation insurer, a careful analysis of that convoluted, ungrammatical statute leads us to the conclusion that the workmen's compensation insurer is not subrogated, at least under the facts of the case before us, to any recovery by the injured employee.
Under No-fault § 111(b), the no-fault insurer (or "obligor", to use the term employed in the Act) must pay the injured insured (the employee Brunelli in this case) "basic loss benefits", regardless of who was responsible for causing the accident. "Basic loss benefits", according to No-fault § 103, are paid to a victim to compensate him for his "net loss". According to No-fault § 103, "net loss" is calculated by subtracting "benefits" and "advantages" (terms which are not specifically defined in No-fault) from "loss". "Loss" is defined in No-fault § 103 as "accrued economic detriment resulting from injury arising out of the maintenance or use
[ 266 Pa. Super. Page 26]
of a motor vehicle consisting of, and limited to, allowable expense, work loss, replacement services loss, and survivor's loss". (The latter terms are defined in No-fault § 103).*fn3 Although "benefits" and "advantages" are not defined in No-fault's definition section, section 206(a) of the Act provides that (except when certain "assigned claims" are involved) all benefits and advantages which an individual ...