HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

43 A.3d 478, 615 Pa. 449, 2012 WL 1476106, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1006
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 30, 2012·No. 625 MAL 2011·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of April, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Whether the Superior Court improperly interpreted § 1797 of the MVFRL and its own case of Barnum v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 430 Pa.Super. 488, 635 A.2d 155 (1993) rev’d in part by Terminato v. Pennsylvania National Ins. Co., 538 Pa. 60, 645 A.2d 1287 (1994), to allow attorney’s fees even when an insurer has utilized the Peer Review process?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 43 A.3d 478, 615 Pa. 449, 2012 WL 1476106, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1006 (Pa. 2012).

43 A.3d 478 (HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, PC v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barnum v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
635 A.2d 155 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1993)
Terminato v. Pennsylvania National Insurance
645 A.2d 1287 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)