State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Insurance Department
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge BROBSON.
This case is less about an agency’s interpretation of a statute and more about an interpretation of this Court’s precedent interpreting that statute. Because the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) and the majority misread and thus misapply this Court’s precedent, I respectfully dissent.
At issue in this case is the propriety of the decision by Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (State Farm) not to renew (or to nonre-new) the automobile insurance policy of John B. Farley (Farley). Pennsylvania has long had a regulatory…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commonwealth, Insurance DepartmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Komada v. BrowneCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
- Musto v. Pennsylvania Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996