Insurance Commissioner Rejected the Filing of a Class Action Suit In Pennsylvania

In Sullivan v. Commonwealth, Ins. Dep't, 48 Pa. Commw. 11, 408 A.2d 1174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979), the Court stated: The Insurance Commissioner rejected the petitioners' assertion of class status because, he argues, class actions are unnecessary in the administrative setting and unauthorized by the applicable law. The Court agreed. In the first place, the General Rules of Administrative Practice and Procedure deal with the problem of similarly situated parties by providing for the intervention of interested parties in on-going proceedings and for the consolidation of proceedings which raise similar issues; and no evidence indicates that these mechanisms are inadequate. In the second place, the proper use of a class action is a complex and controversial policy issue, see 5 Goodrich-Amram 2d s 1710: 1 (Supp.1979), and we do not think the right to assert class standing in an administrative proceeding should be inferred in the absence of a statute or rule specifically conferring and defining such a right. Id. at 1176 Cf. Harveys Lake Borough Taxpayers Ass'n v. Harveys Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Bd., 71 Pa. Commw. 631, 455 A.2d 762 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code does not provide a procedure analogous to the rules governing class action suits permitted by the rules of civil procedure; as such, no class action suit permitted).