Legal Opinion

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided March 7, 1994No. 48 M.D. Appeal Docket 1992PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

This appeal raises a question of first impression, whether Section 213 of the Insurance Department Act of 1921, Act of May 17, 1921, P.L. 789, as amended, 40 P.S. § 51, authorizes the Insurance Commissioner to order an insurance company to cease and desist from business practices that are not specifically prohibited by Act 78. 1 We hold that the Insurance Commissioner does not have the authority to order an insurance company to cease and desist from business practices that do not fall within the specific prohibitions set forth in Section 3 of Act 78.

During the period…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Foster v. Mutual Fire, Marine & Inland InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  2. Samilo v. PA. INSURANCE DEPT.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. Transit Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Hudson v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. Kyu Son Yi v. State Board of Veterinary MedicineCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  3. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility CommissionCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. Young v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & ParoleCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2018
  5. Capital Bluecross v. Pennsylvania Insurance DepartmentCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2007

30 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