no recovery is possible” Id. Jones reasserts her claim that Nationwide’s practice of reimbursing the insured’s deductible from the insurer’s subrogation only on a pro rata basis calculated upon the percent of the insurer’s recovery from a third party violates the common law made whole doctrine. Relying on Superior Court and federal court cases applying Pennsylvania law, Jones asserts, “Pennsylvania law provides that an insurance company cannot exercise its right of subrogation until the insured has been fully compensated or ‘made whole.’ ” Brief at 6 (citing inter alia, Gallop v. Rose, 420 Pa.Super. 388, 616 A.2d 1027, 1031 (1992); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. DiTomo, 330 Pa.Super. 117, 478 A.2d 1381, 1383 (1984); Walls v. City of Pittsburgh, 292 Pa.Super. 18, 436 A.2d 698, 701 (1981) (<HOLDING>)). She observes that in Valora v. Pa. Employees
holding that the language of  9133 applies only to insurers and not to the insurers employees holding that insureds criminal convictions were sufficient to preclude relitigation of the issue of the insureds subjective intent for purposes of evaluating the insurers duty to defend holding that a jury question as to an insurers bad faith arises when facts permit differing inferences as to the reasonableness of the insurers conduct holding insurers right to subrogation arises only upon the insurers showing that the sum of the insureds recovery from the insurer and from persons legally responsible for the injury exceeds the insureds loss holding that an insurers duty to defend arises from the allegations in the complaint against the insured