Schappell, Aplt v. Motorists Mutual (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[J-135-2005] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT EDWARD SCHAPPELL, D.C., ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellant v. MOTORISTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND GEICO CORPORATION, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 51 MAP 2005 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered December 15, 2004 at No. 1877 MDA 2003 which reversed the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Civil Division, entered September 11, 2003 at Nos. 1329-S-2001, 1331-S2001 and 1333-S-2001. 868 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2003) ARGUED: December 6, 2005 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE EAKIN DECIDED: November 20, 2007 I join the Majority Opinion. I write separately as I believe there is an alternate avenue in which Appellant could bring his private cause of action. Section 1797(b)(4) of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law provides: Appeal to court.--A provider of medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise or an insured may challenge before a court an insurer s refusal to pay for past or future medical treatment or rehabilitative services or merchandise, the reasonableness or necessity of which the insurer has not challenged before a PRO. Conduct considered to be wanton shall be subject to a payment of treble damages to the injured party. 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(4). It is well-settled in Pennsylvania interest accrued on an overdue bill becomes a part of the bill itself. See Roos v. Fairy Silk Mills, 19 A.2d 137, 138 (Pa. 1941). When a provider sends an insurer a bill for benefits and the insurer fails to pay it within 30 days as required by 75 Pa.C.S. § 1716, it becomes an overdue bill, and any accrued interest becomes a part of the bill itself. The insurer has refused to pay the full bill, and as § 1797(b)(4) authorizes an appeal before the courts to challenge an insurer s refusal to pay, the remedy under § 1797(b)(4) is available. Therefore, I believe Appellant could bring his private cause of action under § 1797(b)(4). Mr. Justice Castille joins this concurring opinion. [J-135-2005] - 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
