Ostroff v. Keystone Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Ostroff v. Keystone Insurance

446 A.2d 1341, 301 Pa. Super. 73, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4462

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 18, 1982

DocketNo. 2655

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 446 A.2d 1341 (Ostroff v. Keystone 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

Ostroff v. Keystone Insurance, 446 A.2d 1341, 301 Pa. Super. 73, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4462 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellees filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to an uninsured motorist provision of an insurance contract. The petition averred that appellees’ daughter was killed in an automobile accident and the responsible operator was only insured for $15,000. Appellant filed an Answer and New Matter denying that decedent had underinsured coverage. Petitioners filed a reply arguing that the coverage was a question of law to be decided by the arbitrators and that such arbitration was required under the arbitration clause in the insurance contract. Without conducting a hearing, the lower court directed appellant to appoint an arbitrator. This appeal followed.

This court, sitting en banc, recently held that such a claim under an uninsured motorist provision, should not proceed to [75]*75arbitration. White v. Concord Mutual Ins. Co., 296 Pa.Superior Ct. 171, 442 A.2d 713 (1982). However, this current case is different in one important aspect. The arbitration provision under review provides for arbitration of disputes involving an underinsured motorist as well as an uninsured one. The issue is not whether a party may recover from his own carrier’s uninsured provision when the responsible party’s coverage proves to be inadequate. Instead, the question is whether he had underinsured coverage. That issue is to be resolved by arbitration. Compare White, 296 Pa.Superior Ct. 178, 442 A.2d at 716.

Order of the lower court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Appellees filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to an uninsured motorist provision of an insurance contract. The petition averred that appellees’ daughter was killed in an automobile accident and the responsible operator was only insured for $15,000. Appellant filed an Answer and New Matter denying that decedent had underinsured coverage. Petitioners filed a reply arguing that the coverage was a question of law to be decided by the arbitrators and that such arbitration was required under the arbitration clause in the insurance contract. Without conducting a hearing, the lower court directed appellant to appoint an arbitrator. This appeal followed.

This court, sitting en banc, recently held that such a claim under an uninsured motorist provision, should not proceed to [75]*75arbitration. White v. Concord Mutual Ins. Co., 296 Pa.Superior Ct. 171, 442 A.2d 713 (1982). However, this current case is different in one important aspect. The arbitration provision under review provides for arbitration of disputes involving an underinsured motorist as well as an uninsured one. The issue is not whether a party may recover from his own carrier’s uninsured provision when the responsible party’s coverage proves to be inadequate. Instead, the question is whether he had underinsured coverage. That issue is to be resolved by arbitration. Compare White, 296 Pa.Superior Ct. 178, 442 A.2d at 716.

Order of the lower court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

446 A.2d 1341, 301 Pa. Super. 73, 1982 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ostroff-v-keystone-insurance-pasuperct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack