From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodford v. Pa. Ins. Dep't

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Aug 13, 2019
217 A.3d 192 (Pa. 2019)

Opinion

No. 172 MAL 2019

08-13-2019

Michael William WOODFORD and Options Insurance Agency, Petitioners v. PENNSYLVANIA INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, Respondent


ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioners, are:

(1) With respect to a question of statutory construction that the Insurance Commissioner and the Commonwealth Court readily acknowledge was a "matter of first impression", did the Commonwealth Court Panel err when it afforded deference to the Insurance Department's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that was penal in nature instead of strictly construing the statute against the Insurance Department, as required by Pennsylvania law?
(2) Does the Commonwealth Court Panel's holding conflict with other intermediate appellate court opinions in holding that Petitioners were not entitled to summary judgment notwithstanding the fact that the Insurance Department failed to reply to Petitioners' motion for summary judgment and failed to submit evidence to contradict a sworn affidavit submitted by Petitioners?

The Application for Relief in the Nature of a Motion for Stay is DENIED.


Summaries of

Woodford v. Pa. Ins. Dep't

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT
Aug 13, 2019
217 A.3d 192 (Pa. 2019)
Case details for

Woodford v. Pa. Ins. Dep't

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL WILLIAM WOODFORD AND OPTIONS INSURANCE AGENCY, Petitioners v…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

Date published: Aug 13, 2019

Citations

217 A.3d 192 (Pa. 2019)

Citing Cases

Woodford v. Pa. Ins. Dep't

We granted review to address whether the Commonwealth Court erred "when it afforded deference to the…

Woodford v. Commonwealth

judgment and failed to submit evidence to contradict a sworn affidavit submitted by [appellants]?Woodford v.…