Court Opinion

ID: 9635302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:46:15.273044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:23.645538
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
The majority’s thoughtful opinion ably addresses most of the difficult issues arising from remote application of the now-repealed 1978 Act1 to unallocated annuity contracts. Nevertheless, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion regarding the methodology of the assessment. On this issue, I believe the Insurance Commissioner erred.
The Insurance Commissioner concluded that the words of the 1978 Act were clear and unambiguous. Therefore, she specifically declined to consider the fairness of the assessment. Reproduced Record at 1166a-68a. Thus, the Insurance Commissioner embraced a position that only the location of the annuity trustee defines whether a premium is attributable to business in this Commonwealth. This position exalts legal title to the unallocated annuity contracts.
However, I am persuaded that equitable title to the annuity contracts is also relevant. Under this interpretation, the location of the beneficiaries may be considered. The statutory language, “premiums received on business in this Commonwealth,” is not so clear as to exclude this interpretation.
Because the statute is ambiguous when applied to the exotic annuity contracts in question, I would require some attention to the fairness of the assessment, which exceeds $24 million for the Petitioners here. For this reason, I would vacate and remand.

. Life and Health Guaranty Association Act, Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1188, as amended, 40 P.S. §§ 1801-1824, repealed by the Act of December 18, 1992, P.L. 1519, 40 P.S. §§ 991.1701-991.1717.