No. 284 Philadelphia 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 851 July Term, 1980, No. 1282 Philadelphia 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 1371 January Term 1980, No. 1283 Philadelphia 1981, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 2011 January Term 1980.
Allen L. Feingold, Philadelphia, for Warren, appellant.
Francis T. Flannery, Philadelphia, for Massaro, appellant.
Morris H. Zuber, Philadelphia, for Pitroli, appellant.
Alan R. Kutner, Philadelphia, for Reliance, appellee.
Frederick E. Smith, Philadelphia, for State Farm, appellee.
Cercone, P.j., and Spaeth, Brosky, Rowley, McEwen, Hoffman and Van der Voort, JJ.
These appeals were argued before this Court en banc to determine the appropriate statute of limitations under the No-fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (No-fault Act)*fn1 for actions brought against assigned claims obligors.*fn2 We find
that once a claimant files a timely claim with the Assigned Claims Bureau, he is entitled to written notification of rejection by the assigned obligor and then at least sixty days in which to bring an action. A claimant must, in any event, however, bring the action within four years of the accident even if written notice has not yet been received.
In Warren v. Reliance Insurance Co., and the consolidated appeals of Massaro v. State Farm Insurance Co. and Pitroli v. State Farm Insurance Co., each claimant, after receiving no benefits, brought an action against his/her assigned claims obligor. Each action was dismissed by the lower court as barred by § 106(c)(1) of the No-fault statute of limitations. Section 106(c)(1), the general statute of limitations for No-fault claims, provides:
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 ...