Court Opinion

ID: 9629955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:54:35.167318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:28.056383
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the holding of the majority because this case is not ripe for decision by this or any other court of the Commonwealth. The plaintiff in this case seeks to prevent the defendant from adjusting the claims of “third parties” against insurance companies. Defendant claims that his license permits him to do so. If defendant is acting beyond the scope of his license, there is an administrative remedy: a complaint may be filed with the Insurance Commission seeking to have defendant’s license revoked.* As Mr. Justice Pomeroy stated in Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa.—,—, 354 A.2d 250,-(1976) [J-515 1974],
“Where such an administrative remedy is statutorily prescribed the general rule is that a court — be it a *558court of equity or a court of law—is without jurisdiction to entertain the action. See, e. g., DeLuca v: Buckeye Coal Company, 463 Pa. 513, 345 A.2d 637 (1975); West Homestead Borough School District v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors, 440 Pa. 113, 269 A.2d 904 (1970); Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corp., 418 Pa. 57, 210 A.2d 256 (1965). Strict compliance with the statutory procedure thus established is the norm.”
I see no reason to depart from well-established procedure in this case.

 The Insurance Commissioner is empowered to revoke the license of and fine any public adjuster who abuses his license. Act of April 25, 1921, P.L. 276, § 6, as amended Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 605, § 7, 40 P.S. § 306 (1971).
Even if this is not an exclusive statutory remedy, it is clear that the exercise of equity jurisdiction is not appropriate at this time.