Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733 (2026)

Priority of recovery.

✓ 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

§ 1733. Priority of recovery.

(a) General rule.--Where multiple policies apply, payment shall be made in the following order of priority:

(1) A policy covering a motor vehicle occupied by the injured person at the time of the accident.

(2) A policy covering a motor vehicle not involved in the accident with respect to which the injured person is an insured.

(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.

(Feb. 7, 1990, P.L.11, No.6, eff. July 1, 1990)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 57 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Generette v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 957 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Generette v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 957 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 12× “In this case, we consider the interaction between 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733, [1] governing the priority of recovery of uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), and the MVFRL's provision for the waiver of stacking of…”

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 6× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a). [14] In this regard, it is useful to note that respect for agreements to promote stability and certainty in contractual undertakings is one salient policy involved.”

Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. v. Colbert, 813 A.2d 747 (Pa. 2002). · cites it 2× “[3] The Colberts also assert that 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733, which provides a statutory priority of recovery when multiple policies apply, evinces the Legislature's intent that an individual may receive benefits under a policy of insurance covering a vehicle other than the one involved…”

Rudloff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 806 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 4× “¶ 20 Appellee also claims that enforcement of the household exclusion in this case impermissibly conflicts with a section of the MVFRL, namely 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a), which states: (a) General rule.”

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 742 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). · cites it 6× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1). "A policy covering a motor vehicle not involved in the accident with respect to which the injured person is an insured" [13] is an alternative, secondary source of UM/UIM benefits under the scheme created by the MVFRL.”

Nationwide Ins. v. Schneider, 960 A.2d 442 (Pa. 2008). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733. Nationwide pursued summary judgment, and Appellee responded with a cross-motion, arguing that there was no need for exhaustion of primary UIM benefits, as he had extended a credit to Nationwide for the full amount of those benefits as required by Boyle v.”

Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mut. Ins., 535 A.2d 1145 (Pa. 1988). · cites it 2× “See: 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733. However, under the facts of the instant case, the statutory scheme contemplates recovery by appellant of the available limits of liability applicable to the negligent vehicle, i.”

Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities, 32 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2011). · cites it 2× “[4] Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1), Penn PRIME's policy is the UIM policy of first priority because it is the "policy covering [the] motor vehicle occupied by the injured person at the time of the accident.”

Nationwide Ins. v. Schneider, 906 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). · cites it 3× “75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1733(a). ¶ 12 Compounding this error, the trial court opined further that Schneider failed to follow the requisite statutory priority in seeking UIM benefits.”

Erie Ins. v. King, J., 246 A.3d 332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1). In this case, the First Priority policy is Nationwide–UIM, which did not cover all the injuries suffered by Appellant.”

Toner v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins., 137 A.3d 583 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “If stacked, an insured is entitled to a total of $45,000 in UM/UIM benefits-three vehicles insured at $15,000 each equaling $45,000 in total coverage.”

McGovern v. Erie Ins. Grp., 796 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). “¶ 10 The statutory rationale for this recovery procedure is found at 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733 and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1738 which provide: § 1733 Priority of recovery (a) General rule.”

Show all 57 citing cases →

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(1) — 1 case

Fisher v. Harleysville Ins., 15 Pa. D. & C.4th 523 (1992).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(a) — 12 cases

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 809 A.2d 204 (Pa. 2002). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a). [14] In this regard, it is useful to note that respect for agreements to promote stability and certainty in contractual undertakings is one salient policy involved.”

Rudloff v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 806 A.2d 1270 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). “¶ 20 Appellee also claims that enforcement of the household exclusion in this case impermissibly conflicts with a section of the MVFRL, namely 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a), which states: (a) General rule.”

Nationwide Ins. v. Schneider, 960 A.2d 442 (Pa. 2008). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733. Nationwide pursued summary judgment, and Appellee responded with a cross-motion, arguing that there was no need for exhaustion of primary UIM benefits, as he had extended a credit to Nationwide for the full amount of those benefits as required by Boyle v.”

Nationwide Ins. v. Schneider, 906 A.2d 586 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). “75 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1733(a). ¶ 12 Compounding this error, the trial court opined further that Schneider failed to follow the requisite statutory priority in seeking UIM benefits.”

Lowery v. Port Auth. of Allegheny Cnty., 914 A.2d 953 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(a)(1) — 15 cases

Generette v. Donegal Mut. Ins. Co., 957 A.2d 1180 (Pa. 2008). “In this case, we consider the interaction between 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733, [1] governing the priority of recovery of uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), and the MVFRL's provision for the waiver of stacking of…”

Heller v. Pennsylvania League of Cities & Municipalities, 32 A.3d 1213 (Pa. 2011). “[4] Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1), Penn PRIME's policy is the UIM policy of first priority because it is the "policy covering [the] motor vehicle occupied by the injured person at the time of the accident.”

Burstein v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins., 742 A.2d 684 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1999). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1). "A policy covering a motor vehicle not involved in the accident with respect to which the injured person is an insured" [13] is an alternative, secondary source of UM/UIM benefits under the scheme created by the MVFRL.”

Erie Ins. v. King, J., 246 A.3d 332 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1733(a)(1). In this case, the First Priority policy is Nationwide–UIM, which did not cover all the injuries suffered by Appellant.”

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(a)(2) — 12 cases

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(a)(l) — 1 case

Est. of DeMutis v. Erie Ins. Exch., 65 Pa. D. & C.4th 198 (2003).

— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1733(b) — 2 cases

Quinney v. Am. Modern Home Ins., 145 F. Supp. 2d 603 (M.D. Penn. 2001).

Meyers v. Travelers Ins. Co. (E.D. Pa. 2022).

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.