Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol

160 A.3d 123, 639 Pa. 188
CourtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMay 24, 2017
DocketNo. 124 MAP 2016
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.3d 123 (Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Bristol, 160 A.3d 123, 639 Pa. 188 (Pa. 2017).

Opinions

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2017, the order of December 29, 2016 is amended to provide as follows:

[189]*189The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED to consider the following issue, as originally framed in the Petition for Allowance of Appeal:

By affirming its Opinion in Hopkins v. Erie Insurance Co., 65 A.3d 452 (Pa. Super. 2013), and ruling that:
(1) a claimant seeking uninsured or underinsured motorist benefits must file a Complaint or a Petition to Compel Arbitration if the claim does not resolve within four years of the date of the underlying accident, and,
(2) a claimant must file a Complaint or Petition to Compel Arbitration, contrary to the plain language of the Arbitration Act of 1927, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(a), which requires a claimant to file a Complaint or Petition only when “an opposing party refuse[s] to arbitrate,”
did the Superior Court create a new rule that is contrary to prior decisions of this Court and inconsistent with the plain language of the Arbitration Act?

This Court understands this issue to encompass a determination of the time at which a cause of action accrues—thereby triggering the commencement of the statutory period for bringing a claim—in the specific context of an insurance contract containing a mandatory arbitration provision. Notably, this particular issue has not been waived, was advanced in the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and has been briefed by both parties, without objection. As such, no further briefing is necessary.

Chief Justice Saylor files a concurring statement in which Justices Baer, Todd, Donohue, Dougherty and Mundy join. Justice Wecht files a dissenting statement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Fields
197 A.3d 1217 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.3d 123, 639 Pa. 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erie-insurance-exchange-v-bristol-pa-2017.