Legal Opinion · Dissent

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Insurance Department

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 15, 2011No. 404 C.D. 2010Published

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

  1. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commonwealth, Insurance DepartmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Komada v. BrowneCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Musto v. Pennsylvania Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API