# Panea v. Isdaner > Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 10, 2001 · 2001 Pa. Super. 108 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713871 ## Case - **Full name:** Doina PANEA and John Panea, Husband and Wife, Appellants (At 3677), v. Neil ISDANER, M.D., Neil Isdaner, M.D., P.C., and Jeanes Hospital, Appellees; Shirley L. Bell and Thomas P. Bell, Her Husband, Appellees, v. Joseph A. Slezak, M.D., Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. Ltd., L. Alan Egleston, M.D. and Frick Community Health Center. Appeal of Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. and Joseph A. Slezak, M.D. Ltd. (At 2174); Robert Baker, Appellant (At 642), v. Donald Myers, M.D., Sanford Davne, M.D., and Acromed Corporation, Appellees - **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** April 10, 2001 - **Citations:** 2001 Pa. Super. 108; 773 A.2d 782; 2001 Pa. Super. LEXIS 429 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sole - **Judges:** McEwen, Sole, Hudock, Eakin, Joyce, Stevens, Musmanno, Melvin, Todd, Eda, Pgh, Phl - **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713871 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - observing, in response to the Superior Court majority's assertion that Dr. Slezak's opposition to payment was merely his assertion of a statutory right to extinguish his obligation on the claim, that such entitlement, where it may exist, is expressly vested in PPCIGA and not w… - rejecting resort to commonlaw contract principles, and noting contrarily that “to the extent there was insurance coverage, the right to payment constitutes nothing-more than a claim against a tortfeasor who was insured by that insurer” (emphasis added) - noting that the loss occasioned by offsetting the insolvency fund's liability falls not to the claimant, but to the solvent insurers who paid the claimant's claims under other forms of insurance - concluding PPCIGA entitled to set-off for duplicative medical benefits paid by workers’ compensation carrier for claimant’s injury ## Opinion text DEL SOLE, J., concurring. ¶ 1 I join the Majority opinion of Judge Orie Melvin but write separately to address the concerns raised by my colleague Judge Todd in her dissent. ¶ 2 Because in my view the Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaran *797 ty Act was designed to balance the equities between an injured claimant and an insured whose carrier becomes insolvent, I agree with the Majority’s holding that the remedy for a claimant faced with a reduction in payment following settlement is to rescind the settlement once PPCIGA seeks a setoff. Majority Opinion at 789, fn. 3. ¶3 The dissent correctly suggests that where a claimant has negotiated a compromise or waiver of subrogated interests, the claimant’s anticipated economic benefit from the original settlement would be reduced if PPCIGA were permitted to offset the sum of the subrogated interests from the settlement amount. However, providing a claimant with the ability to rescind the settlement in these circumstances alleviates this concern. ¶ 4 Also, when an insurer offers to settle within its policy limits on behalf of its insured, I cannot conclude that the insured would, or should, insist on language in the agreement which restricts the source of the payment to the insurer’s funds. Even in certain professional liability policies where an insured must approve settlement terms, the reality is that settlements within policy limits are assumed to be the responsibility of the insurer. To suggest an insured must insist on language limiting the source of payment to the insurer’s funds would, I believe, place an unnecessary burden on the insured. Further, to permit recovery of a settlement sum from an insured where the insurer becomes insolvent following settlement, but before payment, frustrates one of the purposes of the Act. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9713871. Public record. Not legal advice.