uninsured motorist clause in Pennsylvania

1991So, too, is cited Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin, 436 Pa. 374 , 260 A.2d 804 (1970), wherein the court held all disputes arising under an uninsured motorist clause of a standard insurance policy must be settled by arbitration and cites National Grain Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 326 A.2d 758 (1968).

1991So, too, is cited Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin, 436 Pa. 374 , 260 A.2d 804 (1970), wherein the court held all disputes arising under an uninsured motorist clause of a standard insurance policy must be settled by arbitration and cites National Grain Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 326 A.2d 758 (1968).

1982In Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972), the court ruled that the issue of whether a policy under which an uninsured motorist claim was made had expired was a question for the arbitrators.

1982In Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972), the court ruled that the issue of whether a policy under which an uninsured motorist claim was made had expired was a question for the arbitrators.

1991So, too, is cited Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin, 436 Pa. 374 , 260 A.2d 804 (1970), wherein the court held all disputes arising under an uninsured motorist clause of a standard insurance policy must be settled by arbitration and cites National Grain Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 326 A.2d 758 (1968).

1982Grange Mutual Casualty Company v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, 438 Pa. 95 , 263 A.2d 732 (1970); National Grange Mutual Insurance Company v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 236 A.2d 758 (1968); Hart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 288 Pa.Super.Ct. 53 , 431 A.2d 283 (1981); Gordon v. Keystone Insurance Company, 277 Pa.Super.Ct. 198 , 419 A.2d 730 (1980); Mapp v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 268 Pa.Super.Ct. 404 , 408 A.2d 850 (1979). [4] The second contention raised in Blumling , that the "other insurance" provision in the uninsured motorist clause "violate

1982As to this issue, as is apparent from the Opinion of the Court, written by Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) O’Brien, and as subsequently expressly noted by the Chief Justice in Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Medycki, 431 Pa. 67, 71 , 244 A.2d 655, 657 (1968): “No question was raised as to the arbitrability of the issue.” (emphasis added). 4 In Wilbert , the insured petitioned for declaratory judgment, arguing that an exclusion in the uninsured motorist clause “was in violation of the Uninsured Motorist Act and the rules and regulations adopted and promulgated by the Insurance Commissi

1982As to this issue, as is apparent from the Opinion of the Court, written by Mr. Justice (now Chief Justice) O’Brien, and as subsequently expressly noted by the Chief Justice in Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company v. Medycki, 431 Pa. 67, 71 , 244 A.2d 655, 657 (1968): “No question was raised as to the arbitrability of the issue.” (emphasis added). 4 In Wilbert , the insured petitioned for declaratory judgment, arguing that an exclusion in the uninsured motorist clause “was in violation of the Uninsured Motorist Act and the rules and regulations adopted and promulgated by the Insurance Commissi

1982The second contention raised in Blumling , that the “other insurance” provision in the uninsured motorist clause “violates the intendment of the uninsured motorist law” Blumling, supra, 429 Pa. at 393 , 241 A.2d at 114 , was clearly within the jurisdiction of the court.

1982The second contention raised in Blumling , that the “other insurance” provision in the uninsured motorist clause “violates the intendment of the uninsured motorist law” Blumling, supra, 429 Pa. at 393 , 241 A.2d at 114 , was clearly within the jurisdiction of the court.

1992In his Concurring Opinion in Bethea, 548 A.2d at 1218 , Justice Zappala stated: “I would hold that the settlement of the uninsured motorist claim for less than the limits of coverage is a failure to exhaust the claimants’ rights under the policy which precludes recovery under the [Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Association] Act.” In so opining, Justice Zappala relied, in part, upon the decision of the Washington Court in Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d. 118, 579 P.2d 359 (1978).

1988The appellee also cites Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d 118 , 579 P.2d 359 (1978) where the court did hold that settlement of an uninsured motorist claim for less than policy limits was inadequate to constitute exhaustion under the Washington Insurance Guaranty Act.

1991So, too, is cited Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Co. v. Martin, 436 Pa. 374 , 260 A.2d 804 (1970), wherein the court held all disputes arising under an uninsured motorist clause of a standard insurance policy must be settled by arbitration and cites National Grain Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 326 A.2d 758 (1968).

1990The principle stated in National Grange Mutual Insurance Co. v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 326 A.2d 758 (1968), was quoted: “The arbitration clause, in our view, indicates that the parties contemplated one method, and one method only, for the resolution of disputes under the coverage.

1982Grange Mutual Casualty Company v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, 438 Pa. 95 , 263 A.2d 732 (1970); National Grange Mutual Insurance Company v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 236 A.2d 758 (1968); Hart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 288 Pa.Super.Ct. 53 , 431 A.2d 283 (1981); Gordon v. Keystone Insurance Company, 277 Pa.Super.Ct. 198 , 419 A.2d 730 (1980); Mapp v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 268 Pa.Super.Ct. 404 , 408 A.2d 850 (1979). [4] The second contention raised in Blumling , that the "other insurance" provision in the uninsured motorist clause "violate

1982Grange Mutual Casualty Company v. Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, 438 Pa. 95 , 263 A.2d 732 (1970); National Grange Mutual Insurance Company v. Kuhn, 428 Pa. 179 , 236 A.2d 758 (1968); Hart v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 288 Pa.Super.Ct. 53 , 431 A.2d 283 (1981); Gordon v. Keystone Insurance Company, 277 Pa.Super.Ct. 198 , 419 A.2d 730 (1980); Mapp v. Nationwide Insurance Company, 268 Pa.Super.Ct. 404 , 408 A.2d 850 (1979). [4] The second contention raised in Blumling , that the "other insurance" provision in the uninsured motorist clause "violate

1977In Pein v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 241 Pa.Super. 283 , 361 A.2d 348 (1976), a case involving a claim under an uninsured motorist clause in an insurance contract, the Superior Court again held that “in cases where statutory arbitration is involved resolutions of factual disputes are within the province of the arbitrator, just as they are with the fact-finding jury, or trial judge in non-jury cases.” The court then reversed the order of the court of common pleas which had set aside the arbitration award as being against the law.

1977In Pein v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 241 Pa.Super. 283 , 361 A.2d 348 (1976), a case involving a claim under an uninsured motorist clause in an insurance contract, the Superior Court again held that “in cases where statutory arbitration is involved resolutions of factual disputes are within the province of the arbitrator, just as they are with the fact-finding jury, or trial judge in non-jury cases.” The court then reversed the order of the court of common pleas which had set aside the arbitration award as being against the law.

1976Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Barbera, 443 Pa. 93 , 277 A.2d 821 (1971); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); United Services Automobile Assn.

1976Allstate Insurance Co. v. McMonagle, 449 Pa. 362 , 296 A.2d 738 (1972); Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Barbera, 443 Pa. 93 , 277 A.2d 821 (1971); Pennsylvania General Insurance Co. v. Barr, 435 Pa. 456 , 257 A.2d 550 (1969); United Services Automobile Assn.

2024Co., 997 A.2d 328 (Pa. 2010), [] all of which require a liberal interpretation of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law relating to the definition and reporting requirements for an uninsured motorist claim: where both cases require a showing of prejudice by [Appellee]? 2.

2024Vanderhoff I, 997 A.2d at 329 - 30.

2016While the rules for determining the commencement of the statute of limitations for an uninsured motorist claim are well settled,1 less has been ____________________________________________ * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 See Boyle v. State Farm, 456 A.2d 156 (Pa. Super. 1983).

2016In support of this argument, Appellants rely on the following: (1) a decision of the court of common pleas, and (2) they quote Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Company, 621 Pa. 429 , 78 A.3d 1060, 1065 (2013) (holding that prejudice to the insurer in an uninsured motorist claim requires a balancing test).

2013In Wright , this court addressed the issue of whether the trial court erred by denying the Wrights’ motion for post-trial relief where, as a matter of law, sovereign immunity was inapplicable because the negligence or non-negligence of SEPTA was immaterial to uninsured motorist claims because, in an uninsured motorist claim, SEPTA stands in the shoes of the negligent uninsured third party that causes injuries to SEPTA bus passengers. 33 A.3d at 689 .

2011Donnelly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 708 A.2d 145 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998).

2006Both Harleysville v. Blumling, 429 Pa. 389 , 241 A.2d 112 (1968) and Nationwide v. Ealy, 221 Pa.Super. 138 , 289 A.2d 113 (Pa.Super.1972) (en banc), pre-date the Arbitration Act and were appealed from declaratory judgment actions, not arbitration decisions.

2006Both Harleysville v. Blumling, 429 Pa. 389 , 241 A.2d 112 (1968) and Nationwide v. Ealy, 221 Pa.Super. 138 , 289 A.2d 113 (Pa.Super.1972) (en banc) , pre-date the Arbitration Act and were appealed from declaratory judgment actions, not arbitration decisions.

2006Both Harleysville v. Blumling, 429 Pa. 389 , 241 A.2d 112 (1968) and Nationwide v. Ealy, 221 Pa.Super. 138 , 289 A.2d 113 (Pa.Super.1972) (en banc), pre-date the Arbitration Act and were appealed from declaratory judgment actions, not arbitration decisions.

2006Both Harleysville v. Blumling, 429 Pa. 389 , 241 A.2d 112 (1968) and Nationwide v. Ealy, 221 Pa.Super. 138 , 289 A.2d 113 (Pa.Super.1972) (en banc) , pre-date the Arbitration Act and were appealed from declaratory judgment actions, not arbitration decisions.