ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of August 2005, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is granted limited to the following issues:

a. Does the Superior Court’s decision conflict with Pennsylvania law, and the reasoned decisions of other appellate courts by limiting a claim under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8371 to the unreasonable refusal by an insurance company to pay a valid claim?

b. Does the Superior Court’s decision conflict with the Rules of Statutory Construction under Pennsylvania law by interpreting the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law requires [sic]that “justifiable” reliance under common law fraud must be established to bring a claim under the Statute, as well as does the decision contradict the reasoned decisions of appellate courts in other jurisdictions that require a lesser standard of reliance to bring a claim under those States’ consumer protection statutes[?]