Should a Person Be Awarded Uninsured Motorist Benefits and Also First Party Benefits Against SEPTA If He Is Struck by An Uninsured Car ?

In Adeyward-I v. Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan, 167 Pa. Commw. 450, 648 A.2d 589 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994), where a plaintiff was transferring from one bus to another on a street and was struck and injured by an uninsured car, this Court adopted a trial court's opinion upholding an award of $ 15,000 in uninsured motorist benefits as well as first party benefits against SEPTA. In Gielarowski v. Port Authority of Allegheny County, 159 Pa. Commw. 214, 632 A.2d 1054, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), where a passenger fell after alighting from a bus, the Court affirmed a denial of first party benefits under the MVFRL. In another case a passenger left a bus, walked nearly two blocks and fell while trying to board another bus, and the Court affirmed a denial of first party benefits, distinguishing the factual situation in Adeyward-I. In Bodnik v. City of Philadelphia, 135 Pa. Commw. 453, 580 A.2d 1187 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990), where a pedestrian was talking with a police officer in a parked patrol car and an uninsured car hit them both and fatally injured the pedestrian, the Court held that the City was liable for first party benefits under Section 1713(a) of the MVFRL, as amended, 75 Pa. C.S. 1713(a), which states in paragraph (4) that for a person not the occupant of a motor vehicle, a policy "on any vehicle involved in the accident" applies. Based on the plain language, the Court rejected the City's argument that the vehicle must cause the accident to be "involved" in it. There was no finding of fault by the City.