Keystone Ins. Co. v. Bowman
| Citation | 351 A.2d 767,138 N.J.Super. 544 |
| Parties | KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William E. BOWMAN, Defendant-Respondent, and American Arbitration Association, Defendant. |
| Decision Date | 23 January 1976 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Ernest F. Picknally, Haddonfield, for appellant (Schuenemann & Picknally, Haddonfield, attorneys).
Joseph W. Clarke, Jr., for respondent (Morton B. Wapner on the brief).
Defendant American Arbitration Ass'n did not file a brief.
Before Judges FRITZ, SEIDMAN and MILMED.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
SEIDMAN, J.A.D.
Plaintiff Keystone Insurance Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, issued a policy of automobile insurance to defendant William E. Bowman, a resident of Pennsylvania. The policy contained a provision for protection against uninsured motorists, with a $10,000 limit.
On November 17, 1969 Bowman, who then lived in New Jersey, was riding as a passenger in a tractor-trailer owned by his employer, Liquid Carbonic Company, and operated by a fellow employee. They were in Louisiana on a trip which had begun in Burlington in this State.
The tractor-trailer was involved in a one-vehicle accident, resulting in bodily injury to Bowman.
The liability insurance carriers of both the driver and the employer disclaimed coverage for the occurrence. Thereafter, Bowman made a claim against Keystone under the uninsured motorist coverage of his own policy of automobile insurance. Keystone denied that the provision applied to this situation and refused to make payment.
Bowman then filed a claim petition with the American Arbitration Association. After an exchange of correspondence with counsel for Bowman (and Keystone, the American Arbitration Association determined that Philadelphia was the proper locale for the hearings and submitted to them a list of Pennsylvania arbitrators from which a panel would be selected, rejecting Keystone's argument that if the dispute was to be the subject of arbitration (which it did not concede), it should be heard by a New Jersey panel.
Keystone's next move was the filing in this State of a complaint for a declaratory judgment (1) construing the policy of insurance and declaring the rights of the parties, (2) determining which law governed the issue of the liability of the motor vehicle operator, (3) enjoining defendants from having the issue of coverage decided by arbitration, and (4) enjoining defendants from proceeding with arbitration pending final judgment. An order was obtained directing Bowman to show cause why he should not be enjoined 'according to the demand of the Complaint until the final judgment in this action.'
On the return day of the order the trial judge heard the arguments of counsel and, without apparent objection by either side, proceeded to make a final determination of the case. He ordered that the matter proceed to arbitration, but before a New Jersey panel. Subsequently, on Bowman's motion for reconsideration, an amended order was entered that 'the matter be permitted to proceed through the arbitration procedure which has already been commenced in the locale which has already been determined by the American Arbitration Association.' Keystone appealed from 'the whole of the final judgment.'
Neither party complains of the abbreviated manner in which the cause was heard and decided below, or of the trial judge's omission to set forth at the close of the case, at least orally, his findings and conclusions of law (see R. 1:7--4), or, after the filing of the notice of appeal, to file a written opinion stating the findings and conclusions (see R. 2:5--1(b)). In any event, since the issues involved are essentially legal, we shall dispose of the case on its merits.
The insurance policy involved here contained the following provision for the arbitration of disputes arising under the uninsured motorist coverage section:
If any person making claim hereunder and the company do not agree that such person is legally entitled to recover damages from the owner or operator of an uninsured automobile because of bodily injury to the insured, or do not agree as to the amount of payment which may be owing under this Part, then, upon written demand of either, the matter or matters upon which such person and the company do not agree shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Such person and the company each agree to consider itself bound and to be bound by any award made by the arbitrators pursuant to this part.
Keystone argues that arbitration under the policy is limited to the issues of the liability of the uninsured driver and the amount recoverable. It asserts that the questions in this case go beyond those issues. They include whether a driver can be considered uninsured where he is a fellow employee and the injured passenger has recovered workmen's compensation benefits; whether the injured party here is entitled to additional recovery where his workmen's compensation award exceeded the limit of the uninsured motorist coverage; whether the policy limit is doubled because it covers two cars owned by the insured, which law is to be applied in deciding those questions, and whether it is proper for a New Jersey resident to insist upon arbitration in a jurisdiction 'having no rational connection with the issues in question.'
The fear is expressed that if the Philadelphia arbitration panel were to decide all the issue in the case, 'very little, if any, appellate review is provided from an arbitrator's decision.' Keystone accuses Bowman of seeking to evade unfavorable legal principles in this State by 'forum shopping.'
Bowman contends that (a) Pennsylvania has jurisdiction over the parties and its law controls the interpretation of the insurance contract; (b) we must assume that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Benson
...(only issues of uninsured's negligence and amount of damages are to be determined by arbitration); Keystone Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 138 N.J.Super. 544, 548, 351 A.2d 767 (App.Div.1976) (question whether driver is uninsured where injured insured is co-employee passenger arbitrable under Pennsylv......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Simmons' Estate
...repugnant to local public policy. Caribe Hilton Hotel v. Toland, 63 N.J. 301, 308, 307 A.2d 85 (1973); Keystone Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 138 N.J.Super. 544, 549, 351 A.2d 767 (App.Div.1976); Breslin v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 134 N.J.Super. 357, 365, 341 A.2d 342 (App.Div.1975), aff'd 69 N.J. 4......
-
Reliance Ins. Co. v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc.
...state in which the contract was made, and this general rule is applicable to policies of insurance." Keystone Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 138 N.J.Super. 544, 549, 351 A.2d 767 (App.Div.1976). Reversed and STERN, J.A.D. (concurring). State v. Signo Trading Intern., Inc., 130 N.J. 51, 612 A.2d 932 (1......
-
Balian v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...578 N.E.2d 323 (1991); Michigan Mutual Liability Co. v. Graham, 44 Mich.App. 406, 205 N.W.2d 289 (1973); Keystone Insurance Co. v. Bowman, 138 N.J.Super. 544, 351 A.2d 767 (1976); see generally Annot., 29 A.L.R.3d 328 In Bush this court held that because the arbitration agreement was limite......