People's Insurance Counsel Division v. Allstate Insurance

BATTAGLIA, Judge. The issue in this ease is whether the People’s Insurance Counsel Division (hereinafter the “Division”) may seek judicial review of an order of the Insurance Commissioner, under Sections 6-301 et seq. of the State Government Article, which create and define the powers and duties of the Division, 1 and ³³⁹ Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article, which governs judicial review actions from final decisions of the Insurance Commissioner. 2 Specifically, in 2006, Allstate Insurance Company, Respondent, advised the Insurance Commissioner that it had planned to cease writing new homeowners and mobile-home insurance policies in certain “catastrophe-prone” areas. 3 The Maryland Insurance Administration reviewed Allstate’s filing, and on May 31, 2007, issued its position by e-mail, stating that “the Administration has concluded that the [non-write zone] designation has an objective basis and is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable.” The next day, the Division requested a hear ³⁴⁰ ing on the Commissioner’s “non-write” action, which was granted by the Commissioner. After a hearing was held, an Order was issued on February 2, 2008, by the Associate Deputy Commissioner, deciding that the Division had standing and ordering “that Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company be and hereby are found to have met the requirements of § 19-107 of the Insurance Article; ... that [they] ... are found not to have violated § 27-501 of the Insurance Article; and ... that, a final decision on the hearing is rendered in favor of Allstate.... ” From this Order, the Division sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, and Allstate moved for dismissal, arguing that the Division lacked standing to seek judicial review. The Judge granted Allstate’s motion, holding that because the Division was not a “party” to the hearing before the Commissioner, it could not seek judicial review under Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article.

The Division appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, and Allstate petitioned this Court for certiorari prior to any proceedings before the Court of Special Appeals, asking us to review the trial judge’s decision to dismiss. We granted Allstate’s petition and shall address the following question: Whether the General Assembly authorized the People’s Insurance Counsel Division to file a petition for judicial review from a final decision of the Insurance Commissioner. We shall hold that the Division is a party in matters before the Insurance Commissioner, that this constituted such a matter, and that as a party, the Division may seek judicial review from an order of the Commissioner under Section 2-215(b) of the Insurance Article. I. Procedural History On December 4, 2006, Allstate notified the Insurance Commissioner, pursuant to Section 19-107 of the Insurance Article, 4 that it intended to stop accepting new homeowners insur ³⁴¹ anee business in certain “catastrophe prone” areas, which potentially involved a large number of consumers in Maryland.

Between December 2006 and May 28, 2007, the Maryland Insurance Administration conducted a review of the filing, 5 and on May 31, 2007, the Administration e-mailed its “position” to Allstate: RE: Allstate Filings R17710, R 17712 & R 17214. Dear Mr. Wisniewski: The Maryland Insurance Administration has thoroughly reviewed the filings made under Section 19-107 of the Insurance Article by Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company as referenced above. Based on the information submitted and this review, the Administration has concluded that the designation has an objective basis and is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Obviously, if additional information is provided or if the underlying data changes, this may change the Administration’s position.

On June 1, 2007, the Division requested a hearing before the Insurance Commissioner, alleging that Allstate’s filing was not ³⁴² in compliance with Section 19-107, governing “nonwrites.” 6 Specifically, the Division contended that the “designation of the geographic area does not have an objective basis,” and that the “designation is arbitrary and unreasonable,” because Allstate made “no showing that its existing rate structure or an actuarially-based rate change is inadequate to show the extent that ‘the rate is unreasonably low for the insurance provided and continued use of the rate would endanger the solvency of the insurer’ per Md.Code. Ann. Ins. § 11-806(a)(3).” 7 The Division also requested a stay of the “non-write” filing, which would become effective on June 4, 2007. On July 2, 2007, The Interim Insurance Commissioner granted the Division’s request for a hearing but denied the stay request, stating, in pertinent part, that: [The Division’s] request for a hearing on behalf of the People’s Insurance Counsel Division (PICD) is hereby granted. 4- 4: * ³⁴³ [The Division’s] request for a hearing does not stay the implementation of Allstate’s filings. Those filings were not subject to prior approval by the Administration and the Administration issued no order approving the implementation of the filings.

By statute, the filings may be implemented 60 days after they are filed. Preventing the implementation of the filings would require an affirmative order by the Administration, based on a finding that the filings did not meet the statutory criteria. Hence, while I have recognized the standing of PICD to request a hearing on the Administration’s decision not to order Allstate to halt the implementation of its filings (as amended), there is no affirmative order of the Administration which is subject to being stayed by [the Division’s] request. Allstate filed a motion to intervene and a motion to dismiss the Division’s request for a hearing, asserting that the Division lacked standing to challenge its filing.

In an “Order on Motions,” dated August 31, 2007, the Interim Commissioner granted Allstate’s request to intervene in the hearing, 8 but denied its motion to dismiss, preliminarily determining that the Division had “standing to pursue this proceeding.” A hearing was held in December of 2007, and four issues were presented: 1. Does PICD have standing to request a hearing? 2. When an insurer makes a filing pursuant to Ins. § 19-107, in which the insurer designates a geographic area in the state in which the insurer plans to refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle, property or casualty insurance, is the underwriting standard by which the geographic designation will be implemented exempted from the Insurance Article’s prohibition on discrimination in underwriting, which is set forth in Ins. § 27-501?[ 9 ] ³⁴⁴ 3. Did Allstate satisfy its burden of showing that its underwriting standard, upon which it will base its refusal to write new homeowner’s business in Hurricane Bands 4-6, actually exists, is lawful, and will be applied in a manner that is reasonably related to Allstate’s business and economic purposes, as required by Ins. § 27-501? 4.

Did Allstate satisfy its burden of demonstrating, as required by Ins. § 19-107, that its designation of the geographic area in which it will refuse new business has an objective basis and is not arbitrary or unreasonable? At the termination of the hearing, an associate deputy commissioner, 10 in a written memorandum, determined: I. PICD had standing to request a hearing on this matter.

II

In light of PICD’s challenge to Allstate’s decision to cease writing new business in designated coastal regions, Allstate had the burden of persuasion to demonstrate: that the underwriting standard to be applied to refuse coverage in the designated areas is not discriminatory and was reasonably related to Allstate’s business and economic purposes, as required by Ins. § 27-501, and that the geographic designation upon which Allstate based its refusal to issue new homeowner’s business was objective and was not arbitrary or unreasonable.

III

Allstate has satisfied its burden, pursuant to § 27-501, of showing that its underwriting standard, by which it will refuse new homeowner’s business in Hurricane Bands 4-6 ³⁴⁵ actually exists, is not discriminatory, and is reasonably related to its business and economic purposes.

IV

Allstate has satisfied its burden of showing it has complied with Ins. § 19-107 by filing a timely geographic designation reflecting the areas in which it will cease to writing new homeowner’s business because Allstate’s timely designation is objective, reasonable, and not arbitrary. With respect to the Division’s standing, the associate deputy commissioner interpreted Section 6-306 of the State Government Article and determined that it provided the Division with the ability to represent consumers at-large: PICD was created by the Maryland General Assembly during its special session in December 2004. The purpose of the PICD is to protect, through statutorily prescribed means, the interests of persons insured under policies of medical professional liability or homeowner’s policies issued or delivered in the State. The PICD is authorized, in pertinent part, to do the following: (a)(1) The Division shall evaluate each medical professional liability insurance and homeowner’s insurance matter pending before the Commissioner to determine whether the interests of insurance consumers are affected.

(2) If the Division determines that the interests of insurance consumers are affected, the Division may appear before the Commissioner and courts on behalf of insurance consumers in each matter or proceeding.... (c) As the Division considers necessary, the Division shall conduct investigations and request the Commissioner to initiate an action or proceeding to protect the interests of insurance consumers. State Gov’t § 6-306. Allstate challenges the standing of PICD to a request a hearing in this matter on the grounds that PICD is not an “aggrieved person,” citing the case of Sugarloaf Citizens’ Ass’n v. Dep’t of Env’t, 344 Md. 271, 288 , 686 A.2d 605 (1996).

It is true that the Commissioner has relied upon the Sugarloaf case in the past when it has ruled that organiza ³⁴⁶ tions lack standing. See, e.g., Final Order, Allan Pollack, M.D. et al. v. United Healthcare Insurance Company, MIA-2005-12101. However, unlike associations such as Med Chi, which have been denied administrative standing by the Commissioner in the past, PICD has been granted authority by the General Assembly to act on behalf of insurance consumers in this State and to protect the interests of those consumers. Thus, there is a meaningful difference between the status of an association and the PICD, which is statutorily authorized to participate in proceedings before the Commissioner.

The ruling continued by differentiating two prior determinations of the Insurance Administration, Maryland Insurance Administration (Ex Rel David & Delores Finney) v. Standard Fire Insurance Company, Case No. MIA-2006008-22, and Maryland Insurance Administration (Ex Rel Lenora Stevenson) v. Erie Insurance Exchange, Case No. MIA-2006-07-24, wherein the Commissioner determined that the Division lacked standing to seek a formal hearing. Recognizing that these cases involved “individual consumer complaints arising from a proposed non-renewal of homeowner’s insurance policies,” whereas the “instant case” involved Allstate’s decision to cease wilting new homeowner’s insurance having a “widespread impact” affecting many consumers, the associate deputy commissioner ruled that the Division had standing because it “is authorized to protect the interest of such insurance consumers.” In addressing Allstate’s other contention, that the Division lacked standing because it is only authorized to act as legal representative to “insurance consumers,” 11 but could not request a hearing without an individual consumer complaint, the ruling continued that, by requesting a hearing, the Division was fulfilling the precise duty for which it was created- — to act on behalf of a class of insurance consumers generally: ³⁴⁷ Through its hearing request and participation at the hearing, PICD is acting on behalf of the class of insurance consumers it was created to protect. First, if Allstate ceases to write new business in a particular geographic area, that is one less option available for consumers who have purchased homeowner’s coverage from an Allstate competitor, but who may wish to consider other coverage arrangements. In this way, Allstate’s action would, in fact, impact current insurance consumers.

Second, I disagree with Allstate that the PICD was intended to protect only its existing policyholders. Unlawful underwriting, by its very nature, would deny coverage to an applicant. Adoption of Allstate’s interpretation of the statute would effectively gut the authority of PICD to challenge unlawful underwriting decisions. I do not believe that this is the result the legislature intended.

For these reasons, 1 conclude that by initiating this proceeding PICD is protecting the interests of “insurance consumers” as that term is defined in § 6 — 801(f) of the State Government Article and that, under the circumstances presented in this case, the legislature has granted PICD had standing to a request a hearing pursuant to Ins. § 2-210.[ 12 ] The memorandum concluded: WHEREFORE, it is hereby: ORDERED, that Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company, be an hereby are found to have met ³⁴⁸ the requirements of § 19-107 of the Insurance Article; and it is further ORDERED, that Alstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company be, and hereby are found not to have violated § 27-501 of the Insurance Article; and it is further ORDERED that, a final decision on the hearing is rendered in favor of Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Indemnity Company____ On February 29, 2008, the Division filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. Alstate filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Judicial Review and Request for a Hearing, arguing that the Division did not have standing to seek judicial review, because it was neither a “party” nor an “aggrieved” person, and that the Legislature did not intend to grant the Division power to appear as a party without representing an individual complainant. Ater numerous other motions and memoranda were filed, a hearing was held before a Judge of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City. In an order filed July 15, 2008, the Judge granted Alstate’s Motion to Dismiss, ruling that the Division did not have standing to seek judicial review, as it was not a “party” to the hearing before the Commissioner, because the Legislature had only granted the Division “the rights of ³⁴⁹ counsel to a party to a proceeding” in Section 6-307 of the State Government Article.

Because the Division was not a “party” to the hearing, the Judge continued, it was not eligible to seek judicial review under Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article: (1) In appearances before the Commissioner and courts on behalf of insurance consumers, the People’s Insurance Counsel Division (PICD) has “the rights of counsel to a party” to the proceeding. MD. CODE ANN. STATE GOV’T § 6-307 (2008).

The Insurance Article of the Maryland Annotated Code provides that an appeal of an order of the Insurance Commissioner following a hearing may be taken by either (1) a party to the hearing; or (2) an aggrieved person whose financial interests are directly affected by the order resulting from a hearing or refusal to grant a hearing. MD. CODE ANN. INS. § 2-215(b) (2008).

The PICD does not have the right to appear as a party to a proceeding before the Commissioner or before a court and cannot become a party by participating in a hearing as counsel to a party. (2) The Insurance Commissioner did not have the authority to grant the PICD standing to appear as a party to a hearing before the Commission as the PICD has only been granted “the rights of counsel to a party” to a proceeding before the Commission. In addressing the Division’s contention that this Court’s opinion in Public Serv. Comm’n v. Maryland People’s Counsel, 309 Md. 1 , 522 A.2d 369 (1987), conclusively determined that the Legislature intended that the Division have the ability to have standing as a party before courts when protecting the interests of consumers, the Judge distinguished the Public Service Commission from the Insurance Administration, observing, in particular, that Section 3-202 of the Public Utility Companies Article explicitly states that the People’s Counsel can seek judicial review, 13 whereas Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article makes no such explicit reference to the Division: ³⁵⁰ (3) Although the respective functions of the PICD and Office of the People’s Counsel (OPC) are similar in some respects, their enabling statutes differ in a significant way.

Both entities have been expressly provided “the rights of counsel to a party” to the proceeding before the Commission and courts on behalf of consumers (PICD) or residential and noncommercial users (OPC) (Compare Md.Code Ann. State Gov’t § 6-307(a) and Md.Code Ann. Pub. Util. Cos. § 2-205(a)); the right to appear before any federal or State tribunal or agency, in a judicial or administrative action, to protect the interests of consumers or residential and noncommercial users (compare Md.Code Ann. State Gov’t 6-307(b) and Md.Code Ann. Pub. Util.

Cos. 2-205(b)); and the right to appear before the Commission and courts on behalf of consumers or residential and noncommercial users in each matter or proceeding over which the Commission has original jurisdiction, if the PICD or OPC determines that the interest of insurance consumers or residential and noncommercial users are affected. (Compare Md.Code Ann. State Gov’t § 6-206(a)(2) and Md.Code Ann. Pub. Util. Cos. § 2-204(a)(2)).

However, the Legislature has expressly conferred only upon the OPC the power to seek judicial review of a final decision or order of the Commission if the OPC is dissatisfied with the final decision or order. (See Md.Code Ann. Pub. Util. Cos. § 3-202(a) (2008)).

No comparable provision exists for the PICD. Thus, because the PICD has not been expressly authorized by statute to seek judicial review of a commissioner’s final decision or order, it may not do so on its own behalf, and because the PICD does not represent any individual consumers in this action, it may not seek judicial review in the case sub judice. Both the Division and the Maryland Insurance Commissioner noted appeals to the Court of Special Appeals, and Allstate, ³⁵¹ thereafter, petitioned this Court for certiorari. People’s Ins. v. Allstate, 406 Md. 112 , 956 A.2d 201 (2008).

II

Discussion We are tasked with interpreting Chapter 5 of the Maryland Patients’ Access to Quality Health Care Act, enacted during the 2004 Special Session, 14 which created and prescribed the powers and duties of the People’s Insurance Counsel Division, as well as portions of the Insurance Article governing judicial review of orders of the Insurance Commissioner and hearings before the Insurance Commissioner. Our analysis is limited to whether the Division may initiate a judicial review action, rather than the merits of the controversy, because the Circuit Court’s ruling was confined to the standing issue. In statutory interpretation, our primary goal is always “to discern the legislative purpose, the ends to be accomplished, or the evils to be remedied by a particular provision, be it statutory, constitutional or part of the Rules.” Barbre v. Pope, 402 Md. 157, 172 , 935 A.2d 699, 708 (2007); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Seay, 388 Md. 341, 352 , 879 A.2d 1049, 1055 (2005).

See also Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Kelly, 397 Md. 399, 419-20 , 918 A.2d 470, 482 (2007). We begin our analysis by first looking to the normal, plain meaning of the language of the statute, reading the statute as a whole to ensure that “ ‘no word, clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless or nugatory.’ ” Barbre, 402 Md. at 172 , 935 A.2d at 708 ; Kelly, 397 Md. at 420 , 918 A.2d at 482 . See also Kane v. Bd. of Appeals of Prince George’s County, 390 Md. 145, 167 , 887 A.2d 1060, 1073 (2005). If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we need not look beyond the statute’s provisions, and our analysis ends.

Barbre, 402 Md. at 173 , 935 A.2d at 708-09 ; Kelly, 397 Md. at 419 , 918 A.2d at 482 ; City of Frederick v. ³⁵² Pickett, 392 Md. 411, 427 , 897 A.2d 228, 237 (2006). If, however, the language is subject to more than one interpretation, or when the language is not clear when it is part of a larger statutory scheme, it is ambiguous, and we endeavor to resolve that ambiguity by looking to the statute’s legislative history, case law, and statutory purpose, as well as the structure of the statute. Barbre, 402 Md. at 173 , 935 A.2d at 709 ; Kelly, 397 Md. at 419-20 , 918 A.2d at 482 ; Smack v. Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 378 Md. 298, 305 , 835 A.2d 1175, 1179 (2003). The Maryland Patient’s Access to Quality Health Care Act included provisions, establishing a People’s Insurance Counsel Division in the Office of the Attorney General; providing for the appointment, qualifications, and compensation of the People’s Insurance Counsel; requiring the Attorney General’s Office to provide money in its annual budget for the People’s Insurance Counsel Division; authorizing the Division to retain or hire certain experts; requiring the People’s Insurance Counsel to administer and operate the People’s Insurance Counsel Division; establishing the People’s Insurance Counsel Fund; requiring the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to collect a certain assessment from certain insurers and deposit the amounts collected into the People’s Insurance Counsel Fund; establishing the duties of the Division; establishing certain rights of the Division in appearances before the Commissioner and courts on behalf of insurance consumers; authorizing the Division to appear before any unit of State or federal government to protect the interest of insurance consumers; providing that the Division shall have full access to certain records under certain circumstances; providing that the Division is entitled to the assistance of certain staff under certain circumstances; authorizing the Division to recommend certain legislation to the General Assembly; requiring the Division to report on its activities to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before a certain date.... ³⁵³ 2004 Maryland Laws, Special Session, Chapter 5 (emphasis added).

Section 6-306 of the State Government Article, describes the “functions” of the Division and states, in pertinent part: (a) Evaluation of pending matters. — (1) The Division shall evaluate each medical professional liability insurance and homeowners insurance matter pending before the Commissioner to determine whether the interests of insurance consumers are affected. (2) If the Division determines that the interests of insurance consumers are affected, the Division may appear before the Commissioner and courts on behalf of insurance consumers in each matter or proceeding over which the Commissioner has original jurisdiction. (b) Review of certain rate increases.— (c) Investigations and initiation of actions or proceedings. — As the Division considers necessary, the Division shall conduct investigations and request the Commissioner to initiate an action or proceeding to protect the interests of insurance consumers. Section 6-307(a) and (b) then prescribes the “Powers” of the Division, when appearing before courts or agencies: (a) Appearances before Commissioner and courts. — In appearances before the Commissioner and courts on behalf of insurance consumers, the Division has the rights of counsel for a party to the proceeding, including the right to: (1) summon witnesses, present evidence, and present argument; (2) conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence; and (3) take depositions in or outside of the State: (i) in proceedings before the Commissioner, subject to regulation by the Commissioner to prevent undue delay; and (ii) in proceedings in court, in accordance with the procedure provided by law or rule of court. ³⁵⁴ (b) Appearances before federal and State tribunal or agency. — The Division may appear before any federal or State tribunal or agency, in a judicial or administrative action, to protect the interests of insurance consumers.

Section 6-801 is the. definitional section, stating, in' pertinent part: (b) Commissioner. — “Commissioner” means the Maryland Insurance Commissioner. (c) Division. — “Division” means the People’s Insurance Counsel Division in the Office of the Attorney General. * * * (0 Insurance consumers. — “Insurance consumers” means persons insured under policies or contracts of medical professional liability insurance, and homeowners insurance issued or delivered in the State by a medical professional liability insurer or a homeowners insurer. Insurer. — “Insurer” means a medical professional liability insurer or a homeowners insurer authorized to engage in the insurance business in the State under a certificate of authority issued by the Commissioner. Id. 15 ' Also implicated are two provisions of the Insurance Article.

Section 2-210 provides the Commissioner with discretion to call a hearing for any purpose under the Insurance Article, but mandates that hearings be held under certain circumstances: (a) In general. — (1) The Commissioner may hold hearings that the Commissioner considers necessary for any purpose under this article. (2) The Commissioner shall hold a hearing: ³⁵⁵ (1) if required by any provision of this article; or (ii) on written demand by a person aggrieved by any act of, threatened act of, or failure to act by the Commissioner or by any report, regulation, or order of the Commissioner, except an order to hold a hearing or an order resulting from a hearing. (b) Demand for hearing; action by Commissioner. — (1) A demand for a hearing shall state the grounds for the relief to be demanded at the hearing. (2) Within 30 consecutive days after receiving a demand for a hearing, the Commissioner shall: (1) grant and, unless postponed by mutual consent of the parties, hold the hearing; or (ii) issue an order refusing the hearing.

(3) If the Commissioner does not grant or refuse a hearing within the 30-day period, the hearing is deemed to have been refused. (c) Applicability of Administrative Procedure Act. — (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection, a hearing held under this section shall be conducted in accordance with Title 10, Subtitle 2 of the State Government Article (Administrative Procedure Act-Contested Cases). (2) A hearing held under this section is not subject to § 10-216 of the State Government Article. (d) Delegation of hearing authority. — The Commissioner may delegate to the Deputy Commissioner, an associate deputy commissioner, or an associate commissioner the responsibility for holding a hearing under this section or § 4-114 of this article.

Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article governs “appeals,” although more appropriately called judicial review actions, and states in relevant part: (a) Authorized appeals. — An appeal under this subtitle may be taken only from: (1) an order resulting from a hearing; or (2) a refusal by the Commissioner to grant a hearing. ³⁵⁶ (b) Authorized, appellants. — An appeal under this subtitle may be taken by: (1) a party to the hearing; or (2) an aggrieved person whose financial interests are directly affected by the order resulting from a hearing or refusal to grant a hearing. M= 4= * (h) Judgment. — The court to which an appeal is taken may: (1) affirm the decision of the Commissioner; (2) remand the case for further proceedings; or (3) reverse or modify the decision of the Commissioner if substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions: (i) violate constitutional provisions; (ii) exceed the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commissioner; (iii) are made by unlawful procedure; (iv) are affected by other error of law; (v) are unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence in view of the entire record, as submitted; or (vi) are arbitrary or capricious. Hi H: He (j) Appeal to Court of Special Appeals. — (1) Any party, including the Commissioner, may appeal from the judgment of the circuit court to the Court of Special Appeals as in other civil cases. (2) The judgment of the circuit court may be stayed only by order of court on the giving of any security that the court considers proper.

The gravamen of the current dispute is whether the Division can seek judicial review from an Order of the Insurance Commissioner. The Division and the Maryland Insurance Administration, which is another appellant before us, argue that the plain meaning of Section 2-215 of the Insurance Article and Sections 6-301 et seq. of the State Government ³⁵⁷ Article, grant the Division “party” status in hearings before the Commissioner and the ability to seek judicial review. They also posit that the Legislature, in enacting the statute establishing the Division, intended to mimic the Office of the People’s Counsel of the Public Service Commission, as evidenced by the similarities between the language and structure of the statutes prescribing the functions and powers of the entities, and that as a result, our opinion in PSC v. MPC, 309 Md. at 1 , 522 A.2d at 369 , granting party status to the PSC’s People’s Counsel, should apply to the Division. Allstate responds by asserting that the Legislature did not grant the Division the power to appear as a party before the Insurance Commissioner in a matter where no complaint has been lodged, and alternatively, that as a party, the Division could not seek judicial review, because there was no matter pending before the Commissioner.

Allstate also contends that to interpret the statute as permitting the Division to have the power of judicial review, would be to interpret it in a way that creates a conflict of interest, because the Division is housed within the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Attorney General represents the Maryland Insurance Administration. The first issue that we address is whether the Legislature intended to confer upon the Division the status of “party,” when representing the interest of consumers generally before the Maryland Insurance Commissioner. The language primarily in dispute is, “the Division has the rights of counsel for a party to the proceeding,” (emphasis added) from Section 6-307(a) of the State Government Article. The language of subsection (b), “[t]he Division may appear before any federal or State tribunal or agency, in a judicial or administrative action, to protect the interests of insurance consumers,” is also of import.

While the Division asserts that the language clearly supports its party status, Allstate asserts that the Legislature would have added the words “as a party,” as it did in