Hennessey v. American Mutual Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Hennessey v. American Mutual Insurance

475 A.2d 842, 327 Pa. Super. 367, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4724

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMay 18, 1984

DocketNo. 2858

StatusPublished

This text of 475 A.2d 842 (Hennessey v. American Mutual Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hennessey v. American Mutual Insurance, 475 A.2d 842, 327 Pa. Super. 367, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4724 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

WIEAND, Judge:

The only issue in this case is whether Pa.R.C.P. 238 has application to an uninsured motorist arbitration held pursuant to the Act of April 25, 1927, P.L. 381, No. 248, 5 P.S. §§ 161 et seq., now recodified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7301 et seq. The learned trial judge held that Rule 238 had no application and vacated that portion of the arbitrators’ award which represented damages for delay. We affirm.

The language of Rule 238 is clear. It has no application to arbitration under the Act of 1927. We agree fully with the trial court’s observation that “the language of the rule [369]*369limits the class of arbitrators qualified to apply the rule to those ‘appointed under the Arbitration Act of June 16, 1836 ... or the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of October 15, 1975...’ [Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)]. The concept expressed in the maxim ‘inclusio unius est exclusio alterius’ is fully applicable in these circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by including certain arbitrators in the rule, was implicitly indicating to the courts that only those, and no others, could award delay damages. No mention is made in the rule of either statutory or common law arbitrators.” (footnotes omitted).

Since the trial court filed its opinion in the instant case, this Court has had several opportunities to consider the application of Rule 238 to common law arbitration. It has held uniformly that the rule, by its express terms, has no application to such arbitration proceedings. See: Erie Insurance Exchange v. McGee, 327 Pa.Super. 56, 474 A.2d 1171 (1984); Greenspan v. United Services Automobile Association, 324 Pa.Super. 315, 471 A.2d 856 (1984). For the same reason, it has no application to statutory arbitration.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

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

WIEAND, Judge:

The only issue in this case is whether Pa.R.C.P. 238 has application to an uninsured motorist arbitration held pursuant to the Act of April 25, 1927, P.L. 381, No. 248, 5 P.S. §§ 161 et seq., now recodified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7301 et seq. The learned trial judge held that Rule 238 had no application and vacated that portion of the arbitrators’ award which represented damages for delay. We affirm.

The language of Rule 238 is clear. It has no application to arbitration under the Act of 1927. We agree fully with the trial court’s observation that “the language of the rule [369]*369limits the class of arbitrators qualified to apply the rule to those ‘appointed under the Arbitration Act of June 16, 1836 ... or the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of October 15, 1975...’ [Pa.R.C.P. 238(a)]. The concept expressed in the maxim ‘inclusio unius est exclusio alterius’ is fully applicable in these circumstances. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, by including certain arbitrators in the rule, was implicitly indicating to the courts that only those, and no others, could award delay damages. No mention is made in the rule of either statutory or common law arbitrators.” (footnotes omitted).

Since the trial court filed its opinion in the instant case, this Court has had several opportunities to consider the application of Rule 238 to common law arbitration. It has held uniformly that the rule, by its express terms, has no application to such arbitration proceedings. See: Erie Insurance Exchange v. McGee, 327 Pa.Super. 56, 474 A.2d 1171 (1984); Greenspan v. United Services Automobile Association, 324 Pa.Super. 315, 471 A.2d 856 (1984). For the same reason, it has no application to statutory arbitration.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

475 A.2d 842, 327 Pa. Super. 367, 1984 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennessey-v-american-mutual-insurance-pasuperct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack