Pechner v. Insurance Department ex rel. Sheppard

407 A.2d 100, 46 Pa. Commw. 641, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2108
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 26, 1979
DocketNo. 2242 C.D. 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 100 (Pechner v. Insurance Department ex rel. Sheppard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pechner v. Insurance Department ex rel. Sheppard, 407 A.2d 100, 46 Pa. Commw. 641, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2108 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinions

Memorandum Opinion by

President Judge Bowman,

In this cause of action petitioner law firm avers that it is counsel in the class action suit of Nagle v. Pennsylvania Insurance Department, No. 972 C.D. 1977, and here seeks an accounting of certain funds distributed “in accordance with the advice of counsel for the Rating Bureau of November 8, 1977” and for an order of this Court awarding petitioner 33 1/3% of the sum realized upon such accounting as reasonable attorneys fees in an asserted class action suit.

On even date herewith we are handing down our opinion and order in Nagle. As it pertains to a class action asserted against all the respondents therein and our disposition thereof, we incorporate that opinion and order into this opinion and order, and we sustain in this case the preliminary objections filed by respondent Commonwealth and its agencies.

Although not stated in separate counts, this petition for review appears to be one asserting a cause of [643]*643action in the nature of a complaint in equity for an accounting and in the nature of an independent suit for recovery of counsel fees in a class action suit. Left unsaid is whether said counsel fees are sought under statutory law providing therefor under the facts pleaded, or sought under case law precepts. In any event we are aware of no authority for a law firm to independently seek an accounting of money for the sole purpose of creating a fund where the class action itself, out of which a right to such attorneys fees arises, has not been certified as a class action, and favorably concluded to the benefit of the certified class. For the reasons also expressed in Nagle as to our jurisdiction over the named Commonwealth and Commonwealth agency respondents but want of jurisdiction over the other named respondents, we only pass upon the preliminary objection of these particular respondents.

Judge MacPhail concurs in the result only.

Order

Now, October 26, 1979, the preliminary objections of the Pennsylvania Department of Insurance, the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Board and Fund are hereby sustained and the petition for review is dismissed as to said respondents.

As to the remaining respondents, these proceedings are hereby transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County for further proceedings including disposition of outstanding preliminary objections of the remaining respondents.

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

Related

Milkman v. American Travellers Life Insurance
61 Pa. D. & C.4th 502 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 2002)
Verrichia v. Com., Dept. of Revenue
639 A.2d 957 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1994)
Nagle v. Commonwealth
409 A.2d 525 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
407 A.2d 100, 46 Pa. Commw. 641, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pechner-v-insurance-department-ex-rel-sheppard-pacommwct-1979.