The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to answer for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit the question of whether an insurer can mandate that claimants undergo an unlimited number of medical exams by a doctor of the carrier’s choosing before they can receive benefits.

The justices issued identical Oct. 15 orders in Sayles v. Allstate Insurance and Scott v. Travelers Commercial Insurance, granting the Third Circuit’s petition for certification of a question of law:  “Whether, under Pennsylvania law, a contractual provision in a motor vehicle insurance policy that requires an insured to submit to an independent medical examination by a physician selected by the insurer, when and as often as the insurer may reasonably require, as a condition precedent to the payment of first-party medical benefits under that policy, conflicts with the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S. Section 1796(a), and is therefore void as against public policy.”