Sayles v. Allstate Insurance Co.; Scott v. Travelers Commercial Insurance Co.

Summary

Justice Wecht dissents from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority’s interpretation of Section 1796 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. The dissent argues that the statute does not prohibit insurance policies from requiring insureds to submit to independent medical examinations without first obtaining a court order. It maintains that the majority improperly relies on public policy and effectively rewrites the statute.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, Section 1796 does not prohibit insurers and insureds from agreeing by contract that the insured will submit to a reasonably requested medical examination.
2. In the dissent's view, Section 1796 provides a default judicial mechanism for compelling an examination when necessary; it does not make a judicial order the exclusive means by which an insurer may obtain an insured's participation in an examination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Section 1796 of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law prohibits automobile insurers from including or enforcing contractual provisions requiring insureds to submit to independent medical examinations.
2. Whether an insurer must obtain a court order and demonstrate good cause under Section 1796 before requiring an insured to undergo an independent medical examination pursuant to a prior contractual agreement.