Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rodland v. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 31, 1990No. 1792Published

1Dissent

CIRILLO, President Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. I believe that the legislature, by establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme to regulate the cancellation of automobile insurance policies, and by creating an insurance commission, intended to vest exclusive initial jurisdiction to determine the propriety of an insurance company’s cancellation of automobile insurance with the Insurance Commissioner. Therefore, contrary to the majority, it is my opinion that the trial court was without jurisdiction to determine whether Metropolitan properly cancelled Rodland’s insurance.

Act 78, 40…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Schriner v. Pa. Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  3. Metropolitan Property & Liability Insurance v. Insurance CommissionerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  4. Klingensmith v. KlingensmithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1953
  5. Norwood A. McDaniel Agency v. FosterCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API