In an April 19, 2016 Opinion, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court[1] affirmed the Public Utility Commission’s (PUC) grant of a certificate of public convenience (CPC) for experimental authority to operate as a common carrier to Raiser-PA, LLC (Raiser) in Pennsylvania, excluding Philadelphia.[2] Raiser is a subsidiary of Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), which licenses the technology to Raiser that allows users to request a ride via smartphone app.
The PUC is not required to disclose a utility employee’s “tip letter” or other records relating to an investigation of the utility’s practices where the documents are not considered by the Commissioners when approving the resulting settlement.
Michael McRaith officially began his new job earlier this month as the first Director of the Federal Insurance Office (FIO or Office) after serving for the past six years as Director of the Department of Insurance in President Obama’s home state of Illinois. The FIO was established by the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation of 2010 as an office within the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and represents a part of the Congressional response to concerns about the financial stability of certain large domestic insurers and their subsequent taxpayer bailouts in 2008 and 2009. Director McRaith will report to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
At this time the FIO has only an advisory role and monitoring authority over the business of insurance, while regulatory authority remains vested at the state level. However, the establishment of the Office has caused a great deal of speculation, both within the industry and among state regulators, regarding whether it represents a significant first step towards shifting insurance regulation to the federal level in the future.
Bringing welcome clarity for regulated entities, especially those that rely heavily on in-house legal teams whose members interact on a day-to-day basis with business decision makers, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week reversed the Superior Court’s narrow “client to lawyer” limitation on the attorney-client privilege and held that the privilege operates “in a two-way fashion to protect confidential client-to-attorney or attorney-to-client communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing professional legal advice.” Gillard v. AIG Insurance Co., _A.3d ___(Pa. 2011) (10 EAP 2010; filed February 23, 2011) (Saylor, J.).
