Pressley v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Pressley v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

25 Pa. D. & C.3d 705, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedDecember 23, 1981

Docketno. 1002

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Pa. D. & C.3d 705 (Pressley v. Fireman's Fund Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pressley v. Fireman's Fund Insurance, 25 Pa. D. & C.3d 705, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

GOLDMAN, J.,

This case comes before the court on plaintiffs petition to compel arbitration.

Dallas Pressley, the minor-plaintiff, was removing some packages from the trunk of a neighbor’s car when he was struck by an uninsured motor vehicle. Neither plaintiff nor any member of his household owned an automobile and consequently [706]*706none of them carried no-fault or uninsured motorist coverage.

Acting on plaintiffs application for basic loss benefits, the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan designated defendant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company as the servicing insurance company for payment of plaintiffs basic loss benefits. Defendant has paid and continues to pay these basic loss benefits to plaintiff, however, defendant has refused plaintiffs request for uninsured motorist benefits.

Plaintiff now asks us to compel arbitation with respect to his demand for uninsured motorist benefits. We acknowledge that plaintiff may be entitled to these benefits, see Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 496 Pa. 215, 436 A. 2d 621 ( ), but we do not see how defendant can be compelled to arbitrate this matter. Article I, section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution entitles defendant to trial by jury. Defendant has not agreed to waive this right, nor has the legislature exercised¹ its limited power² to compel arbitration with a right to trial by jury de novo.

Therefore, plaintiff must follow the same course taken by plaintiff in Tubner — commence an action against defendant in the courts.

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

GOLDMAN, J.,

This case comes before the court on plaintiffs petition to compel arbitration.

Dallas Pressley, the minor-plaintiff, was removing some packages from the trunk of a neighbor’s car when he was struck by an uninsured motor vehicle. Neither plaintiff nor any member of his household owned an automobile and consequently [706]*706none of them carried no-fault or uninsured motorist coverage.

Acting on plaintiffs application for basic loss benefits, the Pennsylvania Assigned Claims Plan designated defendant, Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company as the servicing insurance company for payment of plaintiffs basic loss benefits. Defendant has paid and continues to pay these basic loss benefits to plaintiff, however, defendant has refused plaintiffs request for uninsured motorist benefits.

Plaintiff now asks us to compel arbitation with respect to his demand for uninsured motorist benefits. We acknowledge that plaintiff may be entitled to these benefits, see Tubner v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 496 Pa. 215, 436 A. 2d 621 ( ), but we do not see how defendant can be compelled to arbitrate this matter. Article I, section 6 of the Pennsylvania Constitution entitles defendant to trial by jury. Defendant has not agreed to waive this right, nor has the legislature exercised¹ its limited power² to compel arbitration with a right to trial by jury de novo.

Therefore, plaintiff must follow the same course taken by plaintiff in Tubner — commence an action against defendant in the courts.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Pa. D. & C.3d 705, 1981 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pressley-v-firemans-fund-insurance-pactcomplphilad-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack