Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Make sure all you drivers out there, KEEP YOUR INSURANCE PAID UP AND YOU CARD HANDY TO SHOW POLICE in case you're in an accident with a MUNICIPAL vehicle


A friend posted this on his facebook page, we are in Pennsylvania and I don't know if other states have the same law but evidently Pa. is not financially responsible for damage to your automobile. "UNLESS" you don't have insurance. So... if a township truck hits you, YOU AIN'T GONNA GET PAID... how's that grab you ??

"Last week I was stopped at a red light behind traffic in my Escalade and I was rear ended by a municipal dump truck. Borough insurance solicitor calls me today and informs me that new insurance legislation enacted on 1/1/15 ( in order to cut state insurance premiums ) immunes state & municipalities from accidental responsibilities, Unless the victim does not have collision or comprehensive. My agent informed me that under the new statute it is my responsibility to walk away and repair the damage. Being in charge of making laws must be nice" !!

PDF from govt. insurance liability.........what a joke [click below]

Governmental Immunity &
Municipal Liability
Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook, Third Edition (2006)
 

Pennsylvania General Assembly * Local Government Commission Page 79

Traditionally, under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a local governmental unit in Pennsylvania

was immune from tort liability, i.e., for damages resulting from an injury caused by the municipality’s negligent

violation of another person’s rights, when the municipality was acting in a governmental rather than

a proprietary role.1


After the courts abrogated the common-law doctrine of governmental immunity, the tort liability of local

governments became the subject of statute, first set forth in what is commonly referred to as the Political

Subdivision Tort Claims Act and now contained in the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 42

(Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), Part VII (Civil Actions And Proceedings), Chapter 85 (Matters

Affecting Government Units), Subchapter C (Actions Against Local Parties).2

The Legislature has established the following exceptions to governmental immunity,3 providing that a


municipality may be liable for acts in eight limited areas:

1. Vehicle liability.

2. Care, custody or control of personal property

3. Real property.

4. Trees, traffic controls and street lighting.

5. Utility service facilities.

6. Streets.

7. Sidewalks

8. Care, custody or control of animals.

The statutory provisions relating to governmental immunity set forth in Title 42 of the Pennsylvania

Consolidated Statutes do not afford immunity against suits under federal laws like those protecting civil

rights. Also, no immunity would exist where the Commonwealth specifically has allowed in another law

for the possibility that civil damages may be recoverable, as is the case, for example, under Act 169 of

1986, the Whistleblower Law.4

1 For a discussion of the distinction between governmental and proprietary functions of a governmental unit, see Deskbook article



entitled “Can a Municipal Governing Body Enter Into a Contract That Will Bind Future Governing Bodies?”
 
2 42 Pa.C.S. § 8541 et seq.

3 A more complete description of these exceptions to the statutory immunity is provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8542(b).

4 43 P.S. § 1421 et seq.

Page 80
Governmental Immunity & Municipal Liability
Application: A Vehicle in the Possession and Under the Control of a Municipality Collides


With a Private Vehicle.

A citizen whose car has been damaged as a result of the negligent operation of a municipal

vehicle often is surprised when the municipality states it is liable for damages only to the

amount of the deductible of the citizen’s collision insurance coverage.
 
The municipality is correct. Although “vehicle liability” is one of the eight limited areas in which


a municipality may be held liable for its negligent acts, the law that permits this liability also limits a

person’s recovery to the extent that the person either receives or is entitled to receive insurance

benefits (other than life insurance) for damages resulting from a municipality’s negligence.

In effect, the amount of these insurance benefits is deducted from the amount of damages that would

otherwise be recoverable. Thus, the citizen whose vehicle was damaged can recover only the amount

of the deductible on his insurance.

In Germantown Savings Bank v. City of Philadelphia,5 this provision was challenged as violating the equal


protection clauses of the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions by unlawfully discriminating

between classes of litigants and tortfeasors. The appellants unsuccessfully argued that it is unlawful,

and thereby unconstitutional, for plaintiffs-against-the-government whose losses are privately insured

to be treated in one way, while those plaintiffs-against-the government who do not have insurance

are treated in another. In ruling against the appellants, the court provided some background to this

provision:

. . . The Act provides political subdivisions . . . with immunity from suits except for

those injuries resulting from eight separately described causes, and limits the extent

of the political subdivision's liability when one of the eight exceptions applies. . . .

[T]he purpose of the Act was “to stabilize the political subdivision's ability to obtain

insurance coverage by defining the risks to be covered.” . . .

***

In sum, Section 8553(d) of the Act requires a plaintiff who is compensated for injuries

from insurance companies to deduct this amount of compensation from the amount

of compensation he would otherwise be entitled to recover in his claim asserted

against the political subdivision. We hold that classifying plaintiffs who receive insurance

benefits differently from those plaintiffs who will not receive insurance benefits

is rationally related to the legitimate government interest in clearly defining the extent

to which a political subdivision is at financial risk. We conclude that Section 8553(d)

of the Act is not violative of equal protection.6

5 98 Pa. Cmwlth. 508, 512 A.2d 756 (1986), aff’d., 517 Pa. 313, 535 A.2d 1052 (1988), appeal dismissed, 486 U.S. 1049, 108

S. Ct. 2812 (1988).
6 Id. at 760-761 (citations omitted).

© 2005 Microsoft Corporation

 
 
 
 
 

No comments: