Henning v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.

Decision Date21 March 2002
Citation795 A.2d 994
PartiesEdward R. HENNING, Jr. and Edward R. Henning, Sr., Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtPennsylvania Superior Court

David B. Rodden, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Teresa F. Sachs, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: McEWEN, P.J.E., JOYCE, and KELLY, JJ.

OPINION BY McEWEN, P.J.E.:

¶ 1 This interlocutory appeal has been taken as of right pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 7320(a)(1), from the order which dismissed the preliminary objections filed by appellants, Edward R. Henning, Jr., and Edward R. Henning, Sr., to the declaratory judgment complaint which appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (hereinafter "State Farm") had filed, seeking a declaration that Edward R. Henning, Jr., was precluded, as a result of the named driver exclusion endorsement,1 from obtaining uninsured motorist benefits under the motor vehicle insurance policy issued to his father. We affirm.

¶ 2 This appeal, although taken from an order denying preliminary objections filed by appellants to the declaratory judgment complaint filed by State Farm, is properly before us as

an order dismissing preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable. Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8) makes appealable as of right an interlocutory order "made appealable by statute or general rule." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7320(a) makes appealable "a court order denying an application to compel arbitration under Section 7304."

Cooke v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of U.S., 723 A.2d 723, 726 (Pa.Super.1999), citing Hazleton Area School District v. Bosak, 671 A.2d 277 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).

¶ 3 None of the facts relevant to our resolution of this appeal are in dispute. Edward R. Henning, Jr., while driving a vehicle which he owned and which was insured with Progressive Insurance Company, was involved in an accident with an uninsured motorist. The accident was caused by the uninsured motorist and Progressive Insurance Company paid to appellant the limits of the uninsured motorist benefits under his policy.

¶ 4 Appellant then sought uninsured motorist benefits under the policy of insurance issued by appellee State Farm to his father, Edward R. Henning, Sr. State Farm denied the claim for uninsured motorist benefits, citing the named driver exclusion pursuant to which Edward R. Henning, Sr., had specifically excluded his son, Edward R. Henning, Jr., from all coverage under his policy "for bodily injury, loss or damage under any of the coverages of the policy while any motor vehicle is operated by Edward R. Henning, Jr." (emphasis supplied). ¶ 5 Appellants, in response to the declaratory judgment complaint filed by State Farm, filed preliminary objections pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(6), requesting that the court dismiss the complaint and order the parties to proceed to arbitration. The arbitration clause contained in the policy, and under which appellants argue they are entitled to compel arbitration, provides:

Deciding Fault and Amount-Coverages U, U3, W and W3
Two questions must be decided by agreement between the insured and us:

1. Is the insured legally entitled to collect compensatory damages from the owner or driver of an uninsured motor vehicle or underinsured motor vehicle; and

2. If so, in what amount?

If there is no agreement, these two questions shall be decided by arbitration at the request of the insured or us. The arbitrators' decision shall be limited to these two questions. The arbitrators shall not award damages under this policy which are in excess of the limits of liability of this coverage as shown on the declarations page. The Pennsylvania Uniform Arbitration Act, as amended from time to time, shall apply.

¶ 6 Appellee contends that the dispute as to the issue of whether the named driver exclusion is valid does not fall within the narrow scope of the arbitration clause, since appellee does not dispute that the appellant, Edward R. Henning, Jr., is entitled to collect damages from the driver of the uninsured vehicle involved in the accident, and does not dispute the amount of the damages claimed by appellant. Rather, the sole dispute between the parties is whether Edward R. Henning, Jr., is entitled to uninsured motorist benefits under the State Farm policy despite the fact that he was specifically excluded from all coverages under the policy while operating a motor vehicle.

¶ 7 We have no hesitation in concluding that the arbitration clause is limited to the two issues expressly set forth under the terms of the policy and thus is inapplicable to the present dispute between the parties. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted in construing this precise arbitration provision in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710 (3rd Cir.2000):

Under Pennsylvania law, the determination of whether an issue must be submitted to arbitration depends upon (1) whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate, and (2) whether the dispute falls within the scope of that agreement. See, e.g., Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp., 459 Pa. 660, 331 A.2d 184, 185 (Pa.1975)

; Patterson, 953 F.2d at 46. Furthermore, the scope of arbitration "is determined by the intention of the parties as ascertained in accordance with the rules governing contracts generally." Sley Sys. Garages v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 406 Pa. 370, 178 A.2d 560, 561-62 (Pa.1962).

* * * *
[T]he clause specifically states that "the arbitrators' decision shall be limited to these two questions," meaning Questions (1) and (2), which describe fault and amount, respectively.... [T]he policy unambiguously declares THAT ONLY THOSE
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Woods at Wayne Homeowners Ass'n v. Gambone Bros. Dev. Co.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 6 September 2013
    ...Logistics Sys., Inc. v. Prof'l Transp. & Logistics, Inc., 803 A.2d 776, 778 n.1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002); Henning v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 795 A.2d 994 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002); Levy v. Lenenberg, 795 A.2d 419 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002); Midomo Co. v. Presbyterian Hous. Dev. Co., 739 A.2d 18......
  • Donegal Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fackler
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 22 October 2003
    ...argument appellants cite State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Keenan, 953 F.Supp. 103 (E.D.Pa.1997), and Henning v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 795 A.2d 994, 997 (Pa.Super.2002),appeal denied, 570 Pa. 687, 808 A.2d 572 (2002), a case decided by this Court that cites Keenan. We disagree w......
  • Estate of Stiles v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 17 June 2014
    ...of the parties as ascertained in accordance with the rules governing contracts generally." Henning v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 2002 PA Super 80, 795, 795 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa. Super. 2002), citing, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 716 3rd Cir. 2000).Pi......
  • D & H DISTRIBUTING CO. v. NAT. UNION FIRE INS.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • 14 February 2003
    ...intention of the parties as ascertained in accordance with the rules governing contracts generally.' Henning v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 795 A.2d 994, 996 (Pa.Super.2002), citing, State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Coviello, 233 F.3d 710, 716 (3rd Cir. Pittsburgh Logistics S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT