Howey v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Howey v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.

338 A.2d 627, 234 Pa. Super. 383, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1541

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 22, 1975

DocketAppeal, No. 966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 338 A.2d 627 (Howey v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co.) 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

Howey v. Colonial Penn Insurance Co., 338 A.2d 627, 234 Pa. Super. 383, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1541 (Pa. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appeal is quashed.

[384]*384Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

in Support of Per Curiam Order To Quash :

Appellant’s preliminary objections do not question the jurisdiction of the lower court and, therefore, this appeal must be quashed as interlocutory. I reach this conclusion reluctantly because it may result in an unnecessary trial. As pointed out by Judge Van der Voort, the lower court should hold its proceedings in abeyance until the matter is disposed of in the forum freely chosen by the litigants. This is true despite the fact that an arbitration clause does not affect the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. If the lower court does not adopt this approach and proceeds to trial, on appeal by the insurance company we would have to reverse and remand for arbitration proceedings.

Price and Spaeth, JJ., join in this opinion.

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

in Support of Per Curiam Order To Quash:

I would quash the present appeal. Appellant’s claim in his preliminary objections that a provision in the insurance policy required the submission of the case to arbitration does not raise a jurisdictional issue so as to permit an interlocutory appeal from the order overruling the preliminary objections. Capezio & Things, Inc. v. The Wynnewood Meredith Corp., 455 Pa. 84, 314 A.2d 20 (1974) ; Shaw Elec. Co., Inc. v. I.B.E.W. Loc. U. No. 98, 422 Pa. 211, 220 A.2d 889 (1966).

Watkins, P.J., joins in this opinion.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The appeal is quashed.

[384]*384Opinion by

Hoffman, J.,

in Support of Per Curiam Order To Quash :

Appellant’s preliminary objections do not question the jurisdiction of the lower court and, therefore, this appeal must be quashed as interlocutory. I reach this conclusion reluctantly because it may result in an unnecessary trial. As pointed out by Judge Van der Voort, the lower court should hold its proceedings in abeyance until the matter is disposed of in the forum freely chosen by the litigants. This is true despite the fact that an arbitration clause does not affect the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas. If the lower court does not adopt this approach and proceeds to trial, on appeal by the insurance company we would have to reverse and remand for arbitration proceedings.

Price and Spaeth, JJ., join in this opinion.

Opinion by

Jacobs, J.,

in Support of Per Curiam Order To Quash:

I would quash the present appeal. Appellant’s claim in his preliminary objections that a provision in the insurance policy required the submission of the case to arbitration does not raise a jurisdictional issue so as to permit an interlocutory appeal from the order overruling the preliminary objections. Capezio & Things, Inc. v. The Wynnewood Meredith Corp., 455 Pa. 84, 314 A.2d 20 (1974) ; Shaw Elec. Co., Inc. v. I.B.E.W. Loc. U. No. 98, 422 Pa. 211, 220 A.2d 889 (1966).

Watkins, P.J., joins in this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 A.2d 627, 234 Pa. Super. 383, 1975 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1541, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howey-v-colonial-penn-insurance-co-pasuperct-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack