## Facts

- An insurance brokerage firm placed liability insurance coverage for its client, a construction company, with an insurer.
- While the policy was in effect, the construction company performed excavation and underpinning work that damaged an adjacent building wall due to improper underpinning installation.
- The construction company repaired the damage at a cost of about $2,900 and submitted a claim to the insurer.
- The broker, without an assignment of the insured’s rights and without any agreement by the insurer to reimburse it, paid the insured $2,300 as a compromise figure.
- The broker then sued the insurer in assumpsit seeking reimbursement of the $2,300.
- There was no evidence the broker guaranteed the insurer’s performance or negligently procured the insurance coverage.

## Issues

1. Whether the broker, having paid its client after the insurer refused coverage, was a “volunteer” lacking standing to seek reimbursement from the insurer.
2. Whether the broker could recover in assumpsit on a theory that it paid to protect itself from liability or business harm (including loss of goodwill).

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for the broker and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the insurer.
- The broker was a volunteer because it paid another’s obligation without legal compulsion, authority, or an assignment of rights.
- The record did not support recovery based on protecting goodwill or avoiding damage to the broker’s business.
- Because the broker was not legally obligated to pay, it had no right of reimbursement from the insurer.

## Legal Principles

- A person who voluntarily pays the obligation of another, without authority or a promise of repayment, is a volunteer and generally cannot recover the payment.
- A payer may recover in assumpsit when it pays money another should have paid only if the payment was made under legal compulsion, to relieve the payer from liability, or to prevent damage to the payer, and was not officious.
- An insurance broker who neither guarantees the carrier’s performance nor is negligent in procuring coverage is not liable to the insured for the carrier’s refusal to perform its contractual obligations.
- Arguments not raised and supported by the trial record cannot supply a basis for recovery on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that the broker’s payment to its insured client was voluntary because the broker had no legal duty to pay and no assignment of the insured’s claim; absent proof the payment was necessary to avoid the broker’s own liability or concrete business harm, the broker could not recover the amount from the insurer.


Gallagher, Magner & Solomento, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 252 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1969)