33:T545,{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"Legislation","name":"Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 584 Pa. 133","datePublished":"2005-08-10","legislationDate":"2005-08-10","citation":"Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 584 Pa. 133 (Pa. 2005)","countryOfOrigin":"USA","jurisdiction":"Supreme Court of Pennsylvania","description":"Read the full text of Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 584 Pa. 133 (Pa. 2005)). This legal opinion, filed in 2005-08-10, from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania discusses important legal matters. Access this case and related legal documents on Midpage, an AI-powered legal research platform.","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/toy-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-2081469"},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Midpage"},"url":"https://app.midpage.ai/document/toy-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-2081469","isPartOf":{"@type":"WebSite","name":"Midpage","url":"https://app.midpage.ai"},"inLanguage":"en","keywords":"legal, opinion, document, research, midpage, Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 584 Pa. 133 (Pa. 2005)","isAccessibleForFree":true,"isFamilyFriendly":true}35:T492,

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 10th day of August 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted limited to the following issues:

a. Does the Superior Court’s decision conflict with Pennsylvania law, and the reasoned decisions of other appellate courts by limiting a claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371 to the unreasonable refusal by an insurance company to pay a valid claim?

b. Does the Superior Court’s decision conflict with the Rules of Statutory Construction under Pennsylvania law by interpreting the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law requires [sic]that “justifiable” reliance under common law fraud must be established to bring a claim under the Statute, as well as does the decision contradict the reasoned decisions of appellate courts in other jurisdictions that require a lesser standard of reliance to bring a claim under those States’ consumer protection statutes[?]