Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713 (2026)

Source of benefits.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1713. Source of benefits.

(a) General rule.--Except as provided in section 1714 (relating to ineligible claimants), a person who suffers injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle shall recover first party benefits against applicable insurance coverage in the following order of priority:

(1) For a named insured, the policy on which he is the named insured.

(2) For an insured, the policy covering the insured.

(3) For the occupants of an insured motor vehicle, the policy on that motor vehicle.

(4) For a person who is not the occupant of a motor vehicle, the policy on any motor vehicle involved in the accident. For the purpose of this paragraph, a parked and unoccupied motor vehicle is not a motor vehicle involved in an accident unless it was parked so as to cause unreasonable risk of injury.

(b) Multiple sources of equal priority.--The insurer against whom a claim is asserted first under the priorities set forth in subsection (a) shall process and pay the claim as if wholly responsible. The insurer is thereafter entitled to recover contribution pro rata from any other insurer for the benefits paid and the costs of processing the claim. If contribution is sought among insurers responsible under subsection (a)(4), proration shall be based on the number of involved motor vehicles.

(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 36 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 6× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713. Thus, first party coverage truly "follows the person," as only injured claimants who are not an "insured" under a policy of insurance may recover first party benefits from the insurer of the vehicle in which they were occupants.”

Holland v. Marcy, 883 A.2d 449 (Pa. 2005). · cites it 2× “(4) For a person who is not the occupant of a motor vehicle, the policy on any motor vehicle involved in the accident. For the purpose of this paragraph, a parked and unoccupied motor vehicle is not a motor vehicle involved in an accident unless it was parked so as to cause…”

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 742 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 4× “" 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)(1) and (2). It is only when the injured claimant is not an "insured" under a policy of insurance that first party benefits are payable by the insurer of the vehicle in which the injured claimant was an occupant.”

Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Companies, 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713. 6 . Act of July 19, 1974, P.”

Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 517 A.2d 730 (Md. 1986). “§ 40-3107(f) (1981); 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1713(a)(4) (Supp.1986); cf.”

Dorohovich v. West Am. Ins., 589 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 2× “[1] The phrase "maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" is a condition precedent for the recovery of first party benefits (75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)) which are the subject of this appeal, as well as of the uninsured motorist coverage (75 Pa.”

Myers v. Com. Union Assurance Companies, 485 A.2d 1113 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 2× “See §§ 1713; 1716; 1717; 75 Pa.C.S. §§ 1713; 1716; 1717. Thus the above cited interest remains viable.”

Hester v. Pennsylvania Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims ACP, 743 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 4× “at 1327; 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a). [15] *932 ¶ 18 It is unrefuted that Appellees did not own an automobile at the time of the accident and were not covered by a policy purchased by a relative or member of the household.”

Green v. K & K Ins., 566 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1989). · cites it 4× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)(4). Since the plaintiff was not an ineligible claimant under section 1714, and since his injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, he may recover first party benefits against the applicable insurance coverage.”

Downing v. Harleysville Ins., 602 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 2× “I am not able to conclude, however, as does the majority, that no other carrier was at the same priority level under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a) as Harleysville. Rather, in my view, the stipulated facts lead only to the conclusion that Prudential could not have had a higher priority…”

In Re Septa Mvfrl Interest Litig., 996 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713. To confirm that the claimant does not own a vehicle for which insurance is required, SEPTA must request confirmation from the Pennsylvania Department of Motor Vehicles (PennDOT).”

Laguna v. Erie Ins. Grp., 536 A.2d 419 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 2× “The priorities clause of the policy is based upon the priorities established in the MVFRL, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713. This section provides as follows: Source of benefits (a) General rule.”

Show all 36 citing cases →

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(4) — 1 case

Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Moore, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(a) — 12 cases

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713. Thus, first party coverage truly "follows the person," as only injured claimants who are not an "insured" under a policy of insurance may recover first party benefits from the insurer of the vehicle in which they were occupants.”

Dorohovich v. West Am. Ins., 589 A.2d 252 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). “[1] The phrase "maintenance or use of a motor vehicle" is a condition precedent for the recovery of first party benefits (75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)) which are the subject of this appeal, as well as of the uninsured motorist coverage (75 Pa.”

Hester v. Pennsylvania Fin. Responsibility Assigned Claims ACP, 743 A.2d 926 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). “at 1327; 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a). [15] *932 ¶ 18 It is unrefuted that Appellees did not own an automobile at the time of the accident and were not covered by a policy purchased by a relative or member of the household.”

Downing v. Harleysville Ins., 602 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). “I am not able to conclude, however, as does the majority, that no other carrier was at the same priority level under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a) as Harleysville. Rather, in my view, the stipulated facts lead only to the conclusion that Prudential could not have had a higher priority…”

Allen v. Erie Ins., 534 A.2d 839 (Pa. 1987).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(a)(1) — 1 case

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 742 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). “" 75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)(1) and (2). It is only when the injured claimant is not an "insured" under a policy of insurance that first party benefits are payable by the insurer of the vehicle in which the injured claimant was an occupant.”

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(a)(3) — 4 cases

Mowery v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 535 A.2d 658 (Pa. 1988).

Herrman v. Allstate Ins., 450 F. Supp. 2d 537 (E.D. Pa. 2006).

Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Lehigh & Northampton Transp. Auth., 63 Pa. D. & C.4th 565 (2003).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(a)(4) — 5 cases

Tucker v. Fireman's Fund Ins., 517 A.2d 730 (Md. 1986). “§ 40-3107(f) (1981); 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1713(a)(4) (Supp.1986); cf.”

Green v. K & K Ins., 566 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1989). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1713(a)(4). Since the plaintiff was not an ineligible claimant under section 1714, and since his injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle, he may recover first party benefits against the applicable insurance coverage.”

Glover v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 950 A.2d 335 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).

Ellis v. Se. Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., 541 A.2d 843 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1988).

Privette v. UGI Corp., 15 Pa. D. & C.4th 230 (1992).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1713(b) — 2 cases

Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Loos Ex Rel. Loos, 476 F. Supp. 2d 478 (W.D. Pa. 2007).

State Farm Ins. Cos. v. Gladman, 14 Pa. D. & C.4th 620 (1992).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.