Woodford, M., Pets v. Insurance Dept.

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL WILLIAM WOODFORD AND : No. 172 MAL 2019 OPTIONS INSURANCE AGENCY, : : Petitioners : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from : the Order of the Commonwealth Court : 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.