Case ID: pa_615/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

43 A.3d 478
    HERD CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.C., Respondent v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    April 30, 2012.
   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?