Title: Kmonk-Sullivan, et al v. State Farm, et al, Appeal of: Nationwide, et al (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1-2WAP2001; J-89-2001
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 20, 2001

[J-89-2001] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT MICHELLE C. KMONK-SULLIVAN, GEORGE LAUFER, MARY MARANO, ABBY L. RESNICK, LESIA CUCCARO, JOSEPH DZINIAK, FRANK SCIALABBA, CRISTY HOLMES, JOSEPH ORTH, LISA HOPSON, JENNIFER EGGAN, JAMES FIERLE, DONALD GREG, THEODORE ROMANO, THEODORE J. SLIPPY, ROBERT WHALEN, MARY ANN WOODS, GERALDINE YOUNG, JAMIE WINKLER, CHRISTENA KOVATCH, JERRY KOVATCH, CHRISTOPHER BLICKENDERFER, JOYCE CALABRESE, RICHARD CARRYER, SHANNON MOORE, EILEEN RHODES, DORIS ROBINSON, ROBERT MOWERY, JEAN RYER, NAN CAMP, DONNA TIEREN, JOHN CASKEY, GLORIA SOMERHALDER, KAREN WEIL v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANIES, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, AETNA, INC., ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE, TODD PRUGAR, PATRICIA MADDEN, JANET BRADLEY, SUSAN JOHNSON, PAUL JOHNSON, : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 1 WAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered on December 22, 1999 at No. 135 PGH 1998 affirming the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division entered on December 10, 1997 at No. GD 97- 001115 Argued: September 10, 2001 [J-89-2001]- 2 CATHERINE DAHLGAARD, DONALD EDGAR, ELAINE KRUZYNSKI, LAWRENCE PAVLOK, JOSEPH ETHERIDGE, STEPHANIE BECK JOINT APPEAL OF: NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANIES, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, AETNA, INC., ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE SANDRA W. MIDILI, IN HER OWN RIGHT, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ARNOLD W. MIDILI, DECEASED v. ERIE INSURANCE GROUP JOINT APPEALOF: NATIONWIDE INSURANCE COMPANIES, COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANIES, PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, AETNA, INC., ERIE INSURANCE GROUP, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY AND AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 2 WAP 2001 Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered on January 11, 2000 at No. 2359 PGH 1997 reversing and remanding the Judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County, Civil Division, entered on October 22, 1997 at No. 97-3319. ARGUED: September 10, 2001 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR Applying settled principles of statutory interpretation, including consideration of other pertinent statutes and the understanding that express exceptions exclude others [J-89-2001]- 3 not expressed, see 1 Pa.C.S. §§1921(c), 1924, the majority determines that the government vehicle exclusion conflicts impermissibly with the provisions of the MVFRL. I agree fully with that determination, and write separately only to address the majority’s observation that, the statutory analysis having proved sufficient, public policy need not be considered. The term “public policy” may be understood to refer to overarching concerns arising from the laws, long governmental practice, or obvious ethical or moral standards, see Hall v. Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 538 Pa. 337, 347-48, 648 A.2d 755, 760 (1994)(citation omitted), and also to a means of determining the intent underlying (and, indeed, declared by) the statute. See 1 Pa.C.S. §1921 (enumerating tools of statutory construction, including reference to the circumstances under which a statute was enacted; the mischief to be remedied; the object to be attained; and the consequence of a particular interpretation). Thus, although I agree with the majority’s decision to forego the broader type of policy analysis, I would expressly include public policy considerations, such as those identified by the Superior Court, in any analysis of the terms of the MVFRL. In my view, such considerations are as pertinent as the other tools of statutory construction utilized by the majority. See id.