Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hartford Insurance v. O'Mara

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 29, 2006Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 I believe that errors of law by an arbitration panel in a case such as this are not reviewable by this Court unless contrary to public policy, because this case is governed by the rules of common law arbitration, not statutory arbitration. Therefore, the only standard of review is for fraud, misconduct, corruption or other irregularity that caused the rendition of an unjust, inequitable or unconscionable award. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7314, 7341. The only exception to this rule is when an arbitration decision violates stated public policy, not present in this…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Harleysville Mutual Casualty Co. v. BlumlingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968
  2. Hall v. Amica Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  3. Burstein v. Prudential Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  4. United Services Automobile Ass'n AppealSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  5. Brennan v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

14 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