On March 26, 2026, the PA Supreme Court decided the case of Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company v David Heater (WCAB). This case addressed the issue of who a Claimant has a duty to report an injury to. Where this case differed than most notice cases is that it addressed the situation where the Claimant is BOTH the Claimant and the Employer, as the Claimant in this case was also the sole owner and employee of his business. In assessing who Claimant has to provide notice under Section 311 of the Act (just himself or his workers’ comp insurer) the Court examined Section 401 of the Act, which provides “The term ‘employer, when used in this article, shall mean the employer as defined in article one of this Act, or his duly authorized agent, or his insurer if such insurer has assumed the employer’s liability or the fund if the employer be insured therein.” The Court also examined the definition of Employer under Article 1, specifically section 103, stating “The term ‘employer’ as used in this Act, is declared to be synonymous with master, and to include natural persons, partnerships, joint stock companies, corporations for profit, municipal corporations, the Commonwealth, and all governmental agencies created by it.” The Court noted that Section 103 does not include insurers in its definition. The Court therefore held that the Claimant did not have a duty to provide notice of his injury to his insurer within 120 days because ONLY in Article 4 (generally a procedural article) is the insurer synonymous with the term employer. The Court held that in Section 311, the notice provision would be governed by the more limited definition under Section 103. Thus, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling holds that a Claimant’s duty to provide notice is only to his Employer, a somewhat absurd result when the Claimant is in fact the Employer.
In light of this decision, where possible, insurers should write a written notice provision into their policies in order to provide a contractual basis to serve as a potential remedy this situation. As the Commonwealth Court had pointed out, an insurer is at a disadvantage regarding the ability to investigate and control a claim when is does not have notice of the claim. Additionally, these sole-owners have no incentive to sign the Notification of Rights and Responsibilities form to provide some modicum of control over medical for the first 90 days. The potential inability to investigate a claim and enforce panel usage should be taken into consideration by underwriters when writing these policies.