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.
§ 1720. Subrogation.
In actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be
no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant's tort recovery with respect
to workers' compensation benefits, benefits available under section 1711 (relating
to required benefits), 1712 (relating to availability of benefits) or 1715 (relating
to availability of adequate limits) or benefits paid or payable by a program, group
contract or other arrangement whether primary or excess under section 1719 (relating
to coordination of benefits).
(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984; Feb. 7, 1990, P.L.11, No.6, eff.
July 1, 1990)
1993 Partial Repeal. Section 25(b) of Act 44 provided that section 1720 is repealed insofar as it relates
to workers' compensation payments or other benefits payable under the Workers' Compensation
Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
97
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case:
FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990).
FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U.S. 52 (1990).
· cites it 4× “The Hollidays replied that they would not reimburse the Plan, asserting that § 1720 of Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1720 (1987), precludes subrogation by FMC.”
City of Philadelphia v. F. Zampogna, 177 A.3d 1027 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 11× “The trial court held that Section 1720 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S. §1720, prohibited the City from subrogating its payment of Heart and Lung Act1 benefits to Zampogna from his third-party tort recovery.”
Oliver v. City of Pittsburgh, 977 A.2d 1232 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 11× “Due to the City's interest in subrogating against Oliver's settlement proceeds, Oliver filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that under Section 1720 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL), 75 Pa.C.S. § 1720, the City…”
Scalice v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 883 A.2d 429 (Pa. 2005).
· cites it 8× “§§ 1002 (32), 1003(b)(1), but rather, was an ERISA plan that could claim ERISA's preemption of the anti-subrogation provision in the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), 75 Pa. C.S. § 1720. Because we conclude that PEBTF was not entitled to summary judgment,…”
Wimer v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, 939 A.2d 843 (Pa. 2007).
· cites it 5× “On the date of the accident, PEBTF was a self-funded “employee welfare benefit plan” under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.”
Byard F. Brogan, Inc. v. Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd., 637 A.2d 689 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 7× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1720 then provided: In actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to workers’ compensation benefits, benefits available under section 1711…”
Lucas-Raso v. Am. Mfrs. Ins., 657 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 6× “We have determined that 75 Pa.C.S. § 1720 does not bar appellee from asserting its subrogation rights against the other defendants in appellant's law suit since her injury did not arise from the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle.”
Stermel v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 103 A.3d 876 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 3× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1720 (emphasis added). The language “benefits paid or payable by a program, group contract or other arrangement whether primary or excess” was added to Section 1720 in a 1990 amendment.”
Nott v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 303 F. Supp. 2d 565 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
· cites it 3× “75 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 1720. Our task is not to decide which statute will ultimately prevail.”
Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities, 32 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Section 1720 provided, as relevant herein, "[i]n actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant's tort recovery with respect to workers' compensation benefits.”
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.