Holland v. Marcy

This Court granted review of this case in order to address the division between the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court on the following question of law: Whether full tort remedies are available to children of an owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle or whether they, like their parent, may only pursue limited tort remedies pursuant to Section 1705 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (the "MVFRL"), 75 Pa. C.S. 1705? In the case sub judice, the Superior Court held that the plain language of Section 1705 dictates that children injured in their parents registered but uninsured vehicle may obtain full tort remedies under subsection (b)(3) because the language of subsection (a)(5) only specifies that the uninsured owner is deemed to have chosen limited tort coverage. Holland v. Marcy, 817 A.2d 1082 (Pa. Super. 2002). Similarly, the Superior Court previously concluded that full tort remedies were available to the wife of the owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle when the wife did not have any ownership interest in the vehicle. Ickes v. Burkes, 713 A.2d 653 (Pa. Super. 1998). Conversely, when addressing a similar fact pattern, the Commonwealth Court looked at the legislative intent of the 1990 amendments to the MVFRL, which included Section 1705, and at the language of subsections (a)(5) and (b)(2) to determine that children of an owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle were bound by their parents deemed selection of limited tort. Hames v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 696 A.2d 880 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). For the following reasons, we hold that Section 1705 does not bind the children of an owner of a registered but uninsured vehicle to limited tort remedies despite the fact that their parent is deemed to have chosen the limited tort option.