# Dauphin County Bar Ass'n v. Mazzacaro

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 29, 1976 · 465 Pa. 545

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629955

## Case

- **Full name:** DAUPHIN COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION by J. Thomas Menaker, Trustee Ad Litem, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Augustus F. MAZZACARO, A/K/A A. “Gus” Mazzacaro, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 29, 1976
- **Citations:** 465 Pa. 545; 351 A.2d 229; 1976 Pa. LEXIS 443
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Roberts
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629955

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a public adjuster may not represent an accident victim as an attorney-in-fact because “the proper protection of members of the public demands that no person be permitted to act in the confidential and demanding capacity of a lawyer unless he is subject to the regu…
- holding that a public adjuster may not represent accident victims in settlement negotiations against alleged tort- feasors or their insurers
- holding that a public adjuster may not represent accident victims in settlement negotiations against alleged tort-feasors or their insurers
- concluding third-party claimant representation by lay casualty adjusters constitutes unauthorized practice of law

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent from the holding of the majority because this case is not ripe for decision by this or any other court of the Commonwealth. The plaintiff in this case seeks to prevent the defendant from adjusting the claims of “third parties” against insurance companies. Defendant claims that his license permits him to do so. If defendant is acting beyond the scope of his license, there is an administrative remedy: a complaint may be filed with the Insurance Commission seeking to have defendant’s license revoked. * As Mr. Justice Pomeroy stated in Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa.—,—, 354 A.2d 250 ,-(1976) [J-515 1974],
“Where such an administrative remedy is statutorily prescribed the general rule is that a court — be it a *558 court of equity or a court of law—is without jurisdiction to entertain the action. See, e. g., DeLuca v: Buckeye Coal Company, 463 Pa. 513 , 345 A.2d 637 (1975); West Homestead Borough School District v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors, 440 Pa. 113 , 269 A.2d 904 (1970); Commonwealth v. Glen Alden Corp., 418 Pa. 57 , 210 A.2d 256 (1965). Strict compliance with the statutory procedure thus established is the norm.”
I see no reason to depart from well-established procedure in this case.
The Insurance Commissioner is empowered to revoke the license of and fine any public adjuster who abuses his license. Act of April 25, 1921, P.L. 276, § 6, as amended Act of June 22, 1931, P. L. 605, § 7, 40 P.S. § 306 (1971).
Even if this is not an exclusive statutory remedy, it is clear that the exercise of equity jurisdiction is not appropriate at this time.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9629955. Public record. Not legal advice.