He cites the Plan document’s definition of the term “reimbursement” which provides: “Reimbursement means repayment to the Plan for medical or other benefits that it has paid toward care and treatment for the Injury and for the expenses incurred by the Plan in collecting this benefit amount.” Because the $300,000 he received from Erie Insurance Exchange was unrelated to his medical bills, he contends it is not subject to reimbursement. Mr. Gourley also argues the Plan document’s designation of the term “third party” throughout the document is ambiguous. Because the Plan does not define “third party,” he maintains it is unclear whether the term includes his own insurance company, in this case Erie Insurance Exchange. See Standish v. Am. Mfr. Mut. Ins. Co., 698 A.2d 599 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (<HOLDING>). He contends the Plan could have clarified the
holding that a joint tortfeasor may assert a claim for contribution against the plaintiffs uninsured motorist carrier for the torts of an unknown driver holding that joint tortfeasor defendant does not get setoff equal to amount of recovery injured plaintiff receives from carrier of his uninsured motorist coverage holding business automobile policy issued to a corporation did not provide uninsured motorist coverage for owners son holding term third party did not include an uninsured motorist carrier holding that a hit and run or unknown driver is deemed to be uninsured for purposes of the uninsured motorist statute