Ortiz v. Progressive Ins. Co., No. 2259, 2007 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 63 (C.P. Philadelphia Mar. 2, 2007).

In a somewhat bizarre case, a Philadelphia Common Pleas Court ruled that the owner of a fifth uninsured car could not recover PIP benefits (medical benefits and wage loss) even though he was injured in another insured car owned by the same person. The Court ruled this way by citing the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as follows: “…the only way a vehicle owner can be absolved of the responsibility to insure a vehicle registered in that person’s name, whether or not the vehicle remains operable or even in that person’s possession, is to have the registration of the vehicle properly terminated or transferred.” Ortiz did not register the fifth car. In addition, the Court stated “in order to be eligible to receive first party benefits a person must have the required insurance on any and every vehicle currently registered in that person’s name in Pennsylvania at the time of the accident in question.” The Court therefore reasoned that since Ortiz did not register all five of his automobiles, he was not entitled to insurance coverage the fourth car that was insured that he occupied at the time of the accident.