# Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 3, 1997 · 549 Pa. 613

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765554

## Case

- **Full name:** Andrew A. WILLET, M.D., Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL CATASTROPHE LOSS FUND, Pennsylvania Medical Society Liability Insurance Company, and PHICO Insurance Company, Appellees; GREENE COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Appellant, v. PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL CATASTROPHE LOSS FUND, Pennsylvania Medical Society Liability Insurance Company, and PHICO Insurance Company, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 3, 1997
- **Citations:** 549 Pa. 613; 702 A.2d 850; 1997 Pa. LEXIS 2389
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cappy
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Gappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Cappy, Nix, Former
- **Cited by:** 54 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/9765554

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “the purpose of [R]ule [238] is to both compensate the plaintiff for the delay in receiving funds and to encourage the prompt resolution of meritorious claims”
- noting that in an action by health care providers seeking indemnity or contribution by the CAT Fund, the Commonwealth Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Fund as an agency of the Commonwealth
- concluding Commonwealth Court erred in sustaining preliminary objections under demurrer standard in County of Allegheny
- discussing insurer’s obligations when it cannot control settlement negotiations

## Opinion text

CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority today. I write separately to stress that I believe that this disposition is appropriate as this case has advanced only to the preliminary objections stage. As noted by the majority, in reviewing an order granting preliminary objections, we must assume that *627 all material facts set forth in the complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are true. AM/PM Franchise v. Atlantic Richfield, 526 Pa. 110, 121 , 584 A.2d 915, 921 (1990). Where any doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, it should be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer. Id. This is one of the more stringent standards of review which this court applies. I agree with the majority that when this standard is applied to the matter sub judice, it is indeed inappropriate to dismiss Appellants’ complaints at this juncture.
I emphasize, however, that on the record available at this juncture Appellants have not established that the Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss Fund (“CAT Fund”) controlled the settlement negotiations; this allegation is being assumed merely for the sake of disposing of the CAT Fund’s preliminary objections. Accordingly, I concur in the result only.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765554. Public record. Not legal advice.