Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

I dissent. The majority incorrectly assesses the legislative intent underlying the Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle Insurance Act (No-Fault Act)1 in finding that a servicing insurance company under the assigned claims plan is required to pay, in addition to basic loss benefits, the uninsured motorist benefits.

The ascertainment by a court of legislative intent is significantly circumscribed where the General Assembly has expressly set forth its purposes in the passage of the legislation. Commonwealth v. Pope, 455 Pa. 384, 317 A.2d 887 (1974); see also, Commonwealth v. Rieck Inv. Corp., 419…