Legal Opinion · Dissent

Insurance Federation of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Koken

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 17, 2002Published

1Dissent

*634Dissenting opinion by

Judge SIMPSON.

I respectfully dissent from the thoughtful majority and concurring opinions. I dissent because I believe that mandatory arbitration of uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured (UIM) motorist disputes violates the constitutional right to a jury trial.

Our Supreme Court has long recognized that compulsory arbitration is unconstitutional when it infringes upon the right to a jury trial. Application of Smith, 381 Pa. 223, 112 A.2d 625 (1955), app. dismissed sub nom., Smith v. Wissler, 350 U.S. 858, 76 S.Ct. 105, 100 L.Ed. 762 (1955).

Article 1, § 6 of the…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Smith CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Wertz v. Chapman TownshipSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Commonwealth v. One (1) 1984 Z-28 Camaro CoupeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  4. Hood's Executors v. NesbitSupreme Court of the United States · 1792
  5. Smith v. WisslerSupreme Court of the United States · 1955

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API