Prudential Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. McDaniel
| Decision Date | 24 May 1985 |
| Citation | 493 A.2d 731,342 Pa.Super. 557 |
| Parties | PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Myrtle McDANIEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Max L. Spencer, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Samuel S. Davis, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before WIEAND, MONTEMURO and CERCONE, JJ.
Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Prudential) commenced an action for declaratory judgment to determine the validity of an arbitration award entered against it and in favor of Myrtle McDaniel. The trial court, in response to preliminary objections filed by McDaniel, concluded that Prudential was attempting to attack the arbitration award collaterally and dismissed the action. We affirm.
Myrtle McDaniel had been a passenger in a motor vehicle operated by Doll Wilson when it was involved in a collision with an uninsured motorist on February 16, 1980. The Wilson vehicle involved in the accident had been one of three vehicles insured in a collective policy issued by Prudential. When the parties were unable to resolve the McDaniel claim amicably, McDaniel filed, on September 4, 1980, a petition to compel the appointment of an arbitrator. On March 11, 1981, the court entered an order directing Prudential to arbitrate. Prudential then appointed an arbitrator. The arbitrators heard the dispute and, on June 11, 1982, entered an award in favor of McDaniel in the amount of $45,000.00. Prudential did not move to vacate, modify or correct the award. Instead, Prudential commenced an action for declaratory judgment on September 28, 1982, more than three months after the award of arbitrators had been made. Prudential contended in its petition for declaratory judgment that the issue of stacking had been non-arbitrable and that arbitration by two of the arbitrators--Prudential's appointed arbitrator did not participate--was invalid.
Relief by declaratory judgment is not available with respect to a "[p]roceeding involving an appeal from an order of a tribunal." 42 Pa.C.S. § 7541(c)(3). Where ancillary proceedings can be utilized to resolve the issues raised in a declaratory judgment petition, the declaratory judgment action should be dismissed. See: North Canton Enterprises of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Township of Ross, 74 Pa.Cmwlth. 479, 484, 459 A.2d 1366, 1369 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1026, 104 S.Ct. 1283, 79 L.Ed.2d 687 (1984). If, as Prudential contends, the McDaniel claim was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...leave injuries tangential to driving to other systems of compensation." Id., 657 A.2d at 3 (citing Prudential Property & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McDaniel, 342 Pa.Super. 557, 493 A.2d 731 (1985)). Even more importantly, causation ensures that injuries suffered by a victim arise from the use of ......
-
Light v. General Battery Corp.
...WCAB, 77 Pa.C.S.A. § 853, the trial court should have dismissed this declaratory action outright. In Prudential Property & Casualty v. McDaniel, 342 Pa.Super. 557, 493 A.2d 731 (1985), this Court held that relief by declaratory judgment was not available with respect to a proceeding involvi......
-
Lucas-Raso v. American Mfrs. Ins. Co.
...motoring accidents and to leave injuries tangential to driving to other systems of compensation. Prudential Property and Casualty Insurance v. McDaniel, 342 Pa.Super. 557, 493 A.2d 731 (1985). Moreover, there must be evidence that the use of the motor vehicle contributed to the injuries sus......
- Cerrato v. Holy Redeemer Hosp.