Court Opinion

ID: 9766188
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:36:44.486022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:20.282113
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge
(dissenting).
I do not think the majority has answered Girard’s argument that no one would bargain for a provision that could be applied, as the majority holds, at the whim of the insurer.
In the first policy quoted by the majority, the first “may” can sensibly be read as setting forth the agreement required by the statute to escape the prohibition *161against rebates and credits, and the second “may” as expressing capability. Thus the first sentence could be paraphrased: “At the end of each policy year, the Company is permitted, as The Insurance Department Act says may be done by agreement, to allow to the Creditor an experience credit in such amount, if any, as is able to be determined in accordance with an experience rating plan which the Company then has in effect.” (Paraphrasing underlined.) This implies that the Company will have an experience rating plan in effect. It is at least not clear that the Company may choose to have no experience rating plan in effect, and extrinsic evidence of custom would have to be supplied on that point.
With this reading, the second sentence of the first policy makes sense. The sentence is, “The amount of each such experience credit, if any, shall be paid .” (Emphasis added.) “If any” means “if there is any”. If the majority’s reading were correct, the sentence should read, “. . . experience rating, if allowed. . . . ”
In the other three policies quoted by the majority, the first “may” seems an imprecise future tense rather than a grant of an option. Furthermore, the language quoted appears to be meant to state when and in what manner premium adjustments are to be made, not to establish either mandatory or permissive experience rating refunds. If my references to imprecision and apparent meaning seem unkind, consider the following: “Any reduction in the premium rates so made for any policy year may also be made retroactive for the previous year and, in which event, a refund of premium for that year shall be made to the Creditor.” (Emphasis added.) See H. W. Fowler, Modern English Usage 710 (1926).
The majority recognizes that “[a] 11 doubts must be resolved in favor of overruling the demurrer.” 243 Pa.Su*162per. at 157, at 498. It does not appear to me to have followed that rule.
The order sustaining the demurrer should be reversed.
HOFFMAN and CERCONE, JJ., join in this opinion.