Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BEN MCENTEER v. TEMPLE PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY ET AL. (01/29/85)

decided: January 29, 1985.

BEN MCENTEER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING ET AL., PLAINTIFFS
v.
TEMPLE PREMIUM FINANCE COMPANY ET AL., DEFENDANTS



Original jurisdiction in the case of Ben McEnteer, Secretary, Department of Banking, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Temple Premium Finance Company, Temple Insurance Company, Burton Sheldon Rosenfield.

COUNSEL

Ellis M. Saull, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Senior Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Litigation Section, Maura A. Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, Paul A. Adams, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for plaintiffs.

Malcolm H. Waldron, Jr., for defendants.

Judges Williams, Jr. and Barry and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 250]

On June 27, 1984, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and the State Attorney General (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") commenced an action asserting violations of state banking regulations against Temple Premium Finance Company (Temple), Temple Insurance Agency and Burton Sheldon Rosenfield, president of both companies. Temple Insurance Agency and Rosenfield filed answers to the complaint. However, Temple Premium Finance Company filed preliminary objections asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and a failure by plaintiffs to make proper service of process. This opinion and order constitutes our disposition of Temple's preliminary objections.

With respect to its claim that this court does not have jurisdiction over it, Temple asserts that it is a New Jersey corporation, conducts all of its business in the State of New Jersey, and conducts no business in Pennsylvania. It therefore argues that it has insufficient

[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 251]

    contact with Pennsylvania to afford this court jurisdiction over this matter. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, contend that Temple's assertions regarding its lack of contact with Pennsylvania are not credible,*fn1 and that, even assuming the veracity of allegations made in Temple's preliminary objections and Rosenfield's answer to the complaint, a sufficient nexus is shown to afford jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiffs cite the following allegations contained in the preliminary objections and Rosenfield's answer:

1. Temple Premium Finance Company makes loans to Pennsylvania residents. [Rosenfield's Answer]

2. Checks representing the loans are sent into Pennsylvania from New Jersey [Preliminary Objections]

3. In the approximately 20 Pennsylvania offices of the insurance agency, employees or officers of the Finance Company or Insurance Agency interview Pennsylvania residents who wish to purchase automobile insurance. [Rosenfield's Answer]

4. In Pennsylvania, said persons assist the individuals in performing the paper work required to obtain the secured loan, which paper work is then forwarded on behalf of the individuals, to the Finance Company ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.