Thus, at least in dictum, one panel of this Court assumed that the parties to the insurance contract could avoid the impact of the statutory formulas by adducing proof to show a different amount of actual loss. In the second case, Mattia v. Employers Mutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982), we observed that "[s]trict application of the formula set forth in § 205(a) of the Act does not permit Mrs. Mattia to recoup a `reasonable amount of work loss'; in fact, it causes an absurd and unreasonable result." The absurdity in that case was that Mrs. Mattia, who had not drawn a salary from her fledgling business, would have recovered no work loss benefits at all because the statutory formulas had no separate category for a person working and not paid. She would have clearly come within one such category had she not shown any initiative and remained among the unemployed.
1 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 1928(c); see also T N PLC v. Pennsylvania Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 800 F. Supp. 1259, 1263 (E.D.Pa. 1992) (the act has been broadly construed by courts to effect its purposes) (citing Matusz v. Safeguard Mutual Ins. Co., 340 Pa. Super. 116, 119, 489 A.2d 868, 870 (1985)); Mattia v. Employers Mut. Co., 294 Pa. Super. 577, 582-83, 440 A.2d 616, 618-19 (1982) (The Legislature requires insurance statutes to be construed liberally in order to effect their purposes.). Therefore, given that a purpose of the Insurance Guaranty Act, as noted above, is to protect Pennsylvania residents from financial loss or liability, our construction of section 1701.103(5) will effectuate the intent of the General Assembly by ensuring that insured tortfeasors, who reside in Pennsylvania at the time of insured events, are protected from liability imposed in underlying tort actions.
In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the court is not to decide issues of fact, but merely determine if such issues exist, and to resolve all doubts in favor of the non-moving party. Citsay v. Reich, 380 Pa. Super. 366, 551 A.2d 1096 (1988); Mattia v. Employers MutualCompanies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982); Ritmanich v.Jonnel Enterprises, Inc., 219 Pa. Super. 198, 280 A.2d 570 (1981). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proof.
Upon a motion for summary judgment, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts, resolving all factual disputes in favor of the non-moving party and giving her the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Mattia v. Employers Mut. Co., 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982). Accordingly, we state the facts as alleged by appellant.
In Anfuso v. Erie Insurance Group, 306 Pa. Super. 567, 452 A.2d 870 (1982), the court referred to section 205(d)(C) of the No-fault Act which provided benefits to a victim "who ha[d] not previously earned income from work." In Mattia v. EmployersMutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982), the victim was entitled to work loss benefits as calculated under section 205(d) even though her recently opened business was operating at a deficit. Although the No-fault Act was broader in scope than the Financial Responsibility Law and, as a result, allowed for a greater number of recoveries, in many cases the victim was still required to show an actual loss of wages.
In the consideration of a motion for summary judgment, a court must examine the entire record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and the court is not to decide issues of fact but merely to determine whether any such issues exist, and to resolve all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact in favor of the non-moving party. Mattia v. Employers Mutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982); Ritmanich v. JonnelEnterprises, Inc., 219 Pa. Super. 198, 280 A.2d 570 (1981). A party moving for summary judgment has the burden of proof.
Moreover, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings, as well as any admissions on file, giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Mattia v. EmployersMutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982). Additionally, the record as a whole must be examined in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment, with all doubts being resolved against the moving party.
The trial court, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings, as well as any admissions on file, giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn. Mattia v. Employers Mutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982). Moreover, the record as a whole must be examined in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment.
In the consideration of a motion for summary judgment, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the non-moving party's pleadings, as well as admissions on file, giving them the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn. Mattia v. Employers Mutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982). Thus, the record as a whole must be examined in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.
A ruling on a motion for summary judgment "shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1035(b), 42 Pa.C.S.A. On appeal, the Superior Court need only determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact. Mattia v.Employers Mutual Companies, 294 Pa. Super. 577, 440 A.2d 616 (1982). Appellants argue that there exists a genuine issue as to when he discovered that he had an actionable claim, asserting that he did not discover the operative cause of his injury until 1977.