§ 1798. Attorney fees and costs.
(a) Basis for reasonable fee.--No attorney's fee for representing a claimant in connection with a claim for first
party benefits provided under Subchapter B (relating to motor vehicle liability insurance
first party benefits) or a claim for catastrophic loss benefits under Subchapter F
(relating to Catastrophic Loss Trust Fund) shall be calculated, determined or paid
on a contingent fee basis, nor shall any attorney's fees be deducted from the benefits
enumerated in this subsection which are otherwise due such claimant. An attorney may
charge a claimant a reasonable fee based upon actual time expended.
(b) Unreasonable refusal to pay benefits.--In the event an insurer is found to have acted with no reasonable foundation in refusing
to pay the benefits enumerated in subsection (a) when due, the insurer shall pay,
in addition to the benefits owed and the interest thereon, a reasonable attorney fee
based upon actual time expended.
(c) Payment by fund.--The Catastrophic Loss Trust Fund may award the claimant's attorney a reasonable fee
based upon actual time expended because a claimant is unable to otherwise pay the
fees and costs.
(d) Fraudulent or excessive claims.--If, in any action by a claimant to recover benefits under this chapter, the court
determines that the claim, or a significant part thereof, is fraudulent or so excessive
as to have no reasonable foundation, the court may award the insurer's attorney a
reasonable fee based upon actual time expended. The court, in such case, may direct
that the fee shall be paid by the claimant or that the fee may be treated in whole
or in part as an offset against any benefits due or to become due the claimant.
(Feb. 12, 1984, P.L.53, No.12, eff. Oct. 1, 1984)
1984 Amendment. Act 12 added section 1798.
References in Text. Subchapter F, referred to in this section, is repealed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
Hill v. Nationwide Ins., 570 A.2d 574 (Pa. 1990).
Hill v. Nationwide Ins., 570 A.2d 574 (Pa. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Because this is an adequate remedy, I submit, a court of equity lacks jurisdiction to grant specific performance. "In the event an insurer is found to have acted with no reasonable foundation in refusing to pay the benefits enumerated .”
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 763 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
“75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1716. In addition, the insured was entitled to an award of attorney fees if the insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to pay benefits.”
In Re Bova, 211 B.R. 803 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997).
· cites it 2× “See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(a). Compensation for representation in such matters was said to be confined to allowances by the court on itemized fee applications when an insurer has denied claims with “no reasonable foundation” to do so.”
Olsofsky v. Progressive Ins., 52 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (2001).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(b). In 1990, the MVFRL was amended by the Act of February 7, 1990, P.”
Williams v. Tuck, 579 A.2d 1332 (Pa. 1990).
“Where an insurer fails to pay first party benefits required under this subchapter to an eligible claimant, attorneys fees may be recoverable under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798. In the event that a person who suffers an injury arising out of the use or maintenance of a motor vehicle is not…”
Jackson, D. v. USAA (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 3× “C.S. § 1798(b) attorney fees and 75 Pa.C.”
Pierchalski v. Farmers Ins. Grp. (W.D. Pa. 2025).
· cites it 2× “§ 1797 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (“MVFRL”) and that they are therefore entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798 and treble damages pursuant to 75 Pa.”
In Re: E.S. Appeal of: E.S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“" 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(b). However, counsel for Freedom Medical ignores that "[i]f it is determined by a PRO or court that a provider has provided unnecessary medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise or that future provision of such treatment, services or…”
Freedom Med. Supply v. Allstate Fire (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016).
“" 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(b). However, counsel for Freedom Medical ignores that "[i]f it is determined by a PRO or court that a provider has provided unnecessary medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise or that future provision of such treatment, services or…”
Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Pierre, 78 Pa. D. & C.4th 310 (Pa. 2005).
“(43) Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(a), respondent was prohibited from charging and collecting a contingent fee for any services he provided in connection with Ms.”
Leitzel v. Nationwide Ins., 2 Pa. D. & C.4th 101 (1988).
“75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(b). We look to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act to set forth the qualities reaching “unreasonableness.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1798(a) — 2 cases
In Re Bova, 211 B.R. 803 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997).
“See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(a). Compensation for representation in such matters was said to be confined to allowances by the court on itemized fee applications when an insurer has denied claims with “no reasonable foundation” to do so.”
Off. of Disciplinary Couns. v. Pierre, 78 Pa. D. & C.4th 310 (Pa. 2005).
“(43) Pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(a), respondent was prohibited from charging and collecting a contingent fee for any services he provided in connection with Ms.”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1798(b) — 10 cases
Hill v. Nationwide Ins., 570 A.2d 574 (Pa. 1990).
“Because this is an adequate remedy, I submit, a court of equity lacks jurisdiction to grant specific performance. "In the event an insurer is found to have acted with no reasonable foundation in refusing to pay the benefits enumerated .”
Williams v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 763 F. Supp. 121 (E.D. Pa. 1991).
“75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1716. In addition, the insured was entitled to an award of attorney fees if the insurer acted in bad faith in refusing to pay benefits.”
Olsofsky v. Progressive Ins., 52 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (2001).
“” 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(b). In 1990, the MVFRL was amended by the Act of February 7, 1990, P.”
In Re Bova, 211 B.R. 803 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1997).
“See 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798(a). Compensation for representation in such matters was said to be confined to allowances by the court on itemized fee applications when an insurer has denied claims with “no reasonable foundation” to do so.”
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.