Case Title: Progressive Northern Insurance Co. v. Henry, et al (Dissenting Statement)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2010-09-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT PROGRESSIVE NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY , Respondent v. ROBERT L. HENRY, DEBORAH M. HENRY, AND RYAN HENRY, Petitioners : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 474 MAL 2009 Petition for Allowance of Appeal form the Memorandum Opinion and Order of the Superior Court at No. 1102 MDA 2008 dated June 8, 2009 (Allen, Cleland and Fitzgerald, JJ.) reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County at No. 2006-SU-4405-Y01 (Adams, J.) DISSENTING STATEMENT MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR FILED: September 8, 2010 I respectfully dissent. The allocatur stage is normally reserved for making the threshold determination of whether or not to grant discretionary review. See Supreme Court IOP §5C. Thus, I continue to believe that the use of per curiam orders effectuating reversals on the merits at this stage should be reserved for a very narrow set of clear-cut cases, in which there is directly relevant authority that indisputably controls the point in question. Accord Supreme Court IOP §3B(5); County of Berks v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 429, 963 A.2d 1272, 1272-73 (Pa. 2009) (Saylor, J., dissenting). In my view, the majority’s citation to Kvaerner Metals Division of Kvearner U.S., Inc. v. Commercial Union Insurance Company, 908 A.2d 888, 897 (Pa. 2006), does not satisfy the above standard, since that case is not [474 MAL 2009] - 2 directly on point. Moreover, the accompanying parenthetical that generally discusses the dichotomy of ambiguous and unambiguous insurance policy language falls far short of the necessary explanation of the decision’s controlling significance here. Mr. Chief Justice Castille joins this Dissenting Statement.