Legal Opinion · Dissent
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Commonwealth, Department of Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 25, 2000No. Appeal 105 M.D. Appeal Docket 1999Published
1DissentSaylor, Justice
The principal issue in this case involves the interpretation of Section 3(a) of Act 78,1 40 P.S. § 1008.3(a), which precludes an *596insurer from refusing to renew an automobile insurance policy on the basis of certain specified factors, including age, race, color, creed, and, significantly, marital status. Act 78 does not define the term “marital status.” When such term appears in an anti-discrimination statute, two interpretations are possible: a narrow one, in which the term is understood to denote the condition of being married or unmarried, and a broader one, in which the term is understood…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Commonwealth, Insurance DepartmentSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- Cadc 79-145 Jerry W. Markham and Marcia J. Harris, A/K/A Marcia Markham v. Colonial Mortgage Service Co., Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1979
- Westerfer v. Insurance Commissioner of PennsylvaniaCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Department of InsuranceCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1995