trailer could have been used for living purposes year-round as it had facilities which could be adapted to meet basic shelter and living needs.
10. The trailer was used by the father on a regular basis for overnight accommodations when he made weekly visits to the Veteran's Administration Hospital in the Sybertsville area. He also used it during the hunting season. The trailer did not have a post office address or a telephone. However, it was located a short distance from a permanent dwelling. Those neighbors did have a telephone which was used by plaintiff to receive, and presumably make, calls. The father and son shared the trailer during the father's frequent visits.
11. Plaintiff would send laundry back to Bensalem with his father to be returned on his next visit. The bulk of his possessions remained at his parents' home in Bensalem where plaintiff still received mail.
12. Plaintiff's living in the trailer on a regular basis just prior to the accident as opposed to his grandmother's house is corroborated by the testimony of his girl friend, Karen Macuta. Plaintiff told her that he was from Philadelphia and lived in Philadelphia. Plaintiff did not have a car. When Ms. Macuta drove her car on their dates, she would drop plaintiff off either at the trailer or the uncle's bar.
13. Plaintiff's father assumed responsibility for locating suitable shelter for his son when the grandmother decided she would not have him live with her any longer. That assumption of responsibility demonstrated that plaintiff was still attached to the Bensalem family unit. Further, the placing of plaintiff in his trailer simply evidenced an extension of the Bensalem residence for purposes of the Pennsylvania No-Fault Act.
14. Plaintiff was not a vagrant, having no connection to a family unit. Not only did his parents consider him as residing with them, especially since the trailer shelter was their responsibility, but the grandmother also considered the parents, (at least her son, plaintiff's father), as being responsible for finding suitable housing for their son. Neither the parents nor the grandmother considered plaintiff to be a liberated and independent child.
15. The trailer was intended by plaintiff and his father as a suitable temporary housing. The move from the grandmother's house occurred in the early spring. Plaintiff was just starting a job with decent pay that promised to be steady. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that before winter plaintiff would have been able to afford housing of his own or to remain at the father's trailer. However, as of May 20, 1982, plaintiff was not in a position to assert financial independence from his parents.
16. Therefore, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff remained part of his parents' family unit and that he was not residing with his grandmother at the time of the accident.
17. Consequently, Allstate Insurance Company is solely liable for the payment of benefits to plaintiff.
18. Regardless of any good faith defense, defendant Allstate is required to pay eighteen percent (18%) interest per annum on all No-Fault benefits, including reasonable loss wage benefits, which were not paid within thirty (30) days after receipt by Allstate of reasonable proof of damages to plaintiff and the amount of loss sustained. Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, § 1009.106(a) (2); Motley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 303 Pa. Super. 120, 449 A.2d 607, 612 (1982). Cf. Hayes v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 425 A.2d 419 (1981) (plaintiff who had submitted all necessary proof of damages entitled to 18% interest on overdue payments). Plaintiff's letter to counsel for Allstate dated June 29, 1981, does not constitute sufficient proof of damages.
21. Interest to be paid, if any, shall accrue on the thirty-first (31st) day after plaintiff submitted or submits reasonable proof. See Jones v. National Casualty Ins. Co., 20 D & C 3d 360, 367 (1981). Cf. Marryshow v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 306 Pa. Super. 233, 452 A.2d 530, 532 (1982) (18% interest on work loss benefits effective thirty days after verdict, the trial being first time claimant could be said to have submitted reasonable proof of loss).
22. Allstate is not liable for counsel fees since its defense to coverage was based on a reasonable foundation that either one of two other insurance carriers might be liable. See Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. tit. 40, § 1009.107(3); Hayes v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 493 Pa. 150, 154, 425 A.2d 419, 421 (1981).
23. Allstate is liable to Nationwide for all payments made by Nationwide to plaintiff pending resolution of this declaratory judgment.
An appropriate order follows.
AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 1983, in accordance with the foregoing memorandum, JUDGMENT is hereby entered in favor of plaintiff, Robert Pursell, Jr., and against defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, and in favor of defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and National Fire Insurance Company and against plaintiff.
Allstate is hereby ORDERED to reimburse Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company forthwith for all payments made by Nationwide to plaintiff.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.