*1 Company Taylor, Insurance Allstate Appellant. C. J., 1989. Before
Argued January Bell, and Pom:eroy, Roberts O’Brien, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, JJ. for appellant. Monaghan, J.
Dennis .22 B. him Robert H. Holland,
Robertson Taylor, for appellee. AntonelU & Kolb, Holland, Heffner, *2 by 1969: April 23, Opinion Me. Justice O’Brien, personal suffered Robert W. W. Appellant, Taylor, on in occurred a motor vehicle accident which injuries the acci- other involved party March 1966. The de- subsequently one it Joseph Kovacs, dent was who, was Appellant an uninsured motorist. was veloped, by alleged damages therefore unable to his satisfy appel- of time of the trespass. accident, action At the on insurer the Allstate Insurance was Company, lee, purchased of automobile insurance liability a policy W. appellant’s Tay- father. Walter Walter W. Taylor, the at California. Appellant, resided Torrance, lor Universi- a student at Lehigh time of the accident was in which in Northampton County County, ty of among coverages occurred. Included accident protection was policy insurance Taylor’s the senior cov- provides The policy uninsured motorists. against person desig- “named insured” and “any to the erage a schedule while named insured nated, and, such spouse of household, any of the same resident Appellant made and relatives of either.” named insured under the uninsured motorist appellee application and coverage of father’s provision was not ground denied on was insured, household as the named of the same resident in accordance Appellant pro- with the then, his father. made a demand for arbitration. policy, visions for judgment, filed a declaratory Appellee appellant’s of mem- determination status as a seeking a of his father’s nonmember and fur- household, ber from restrain seeking proceeding ther stipulation subsequent By the parties, arbitration. stayed pending an adjudication arbitration judgment jurisdiction declaratory action, was entertained the court below. April
Appellant, born in who was age nearly years by reached the the time the ac- University of cident occurred. He had attended the subsequent graduation Southern California and to his Fellowship gradu- from that institution obtained University. ate at from work Yale studied at Yale He Degree in- 1961 until he earned his from that Masters University Lehigh He then stitution 1964. came to Lehigh to commence on Doctorate. work While stipend taught part-time for his he and received a pe- support. All of these facts were contained developed declaratory judgment tition for *3 testimony. Appellant throughout contended that partial support parents student status and made continuing him resident the household of his fa- ther. The court concluded that below of the father and not a resident same household as his appeal holding from is entered a decree which this so taken. not and not reach of the
We need will the merits parties dispute of between the relative to the status uninsured motorist cover- under his father’s stipulation Despite age. parties, the of the the court judg- declaratory not have entertained should below dispute parties having between the ment action. The provision motorist of the the uninsured under arisen policy arbitration. The have been settled should policy question no different from others which interpreted. previously provide, Its terms have we provision’s respect motorist the uninsured arbitra- person making any claim “If hereunder tion clause: agree person company not such do is le- the damages recover from the or gally owner entitled bodily operator automobile uninsured because of of an injury agree amount the or do not as to the insured, payment may owing of under which be this endorse- upon matter written demand ment, then, either, company upon person matters such agree do not be settled arbitration in accord- shall of the American Arbitration Asso- ance with the rules added). (Emphasis language, . .” From ciation. ^ petition appellee and so its for de- concludes, states coverage claratory judgment, “that the issues [sic] existing to Wal- under issued Taylor proper un- W. is not a issue for arbitration ter agreement. [Appellee] insuring avers der further insuring agreement provides only is- that the that the capable in- arbitration of submission to under sues suring agreement question liability for dam- are the alleged damages.” ages and amount of pointed parties, out In of the it should defense be judgment declaratory that the as well prior stipulation an- of counsel were filed to the Grange Co. our decision in Nat. M. Ins. nouncement of January 428 Pa. 236 A. 2d on Kuhn, interpreting arbitra- 1968. identical case, coverage, of uninsured motorist and consid- tion clause scope argument ering arbi- as to same disputes all held that between the tration, coverage arising the uninsured motorist should under *4 phrase by We held decided arbitration. that be enough was broad to that “matter or matters” indicate questions determination of intended all by arising coverage the uninsured motorist under be proceed- read there refused to court We arbitration. agreement ings to arbitrate, into the and determined competent ques- to arbitrator decide that the tortfeasor was or an of whether was not un- tion that time, Since we motorist. have had other insured subject. speak Harley In to the same smile occasions
25
Mutual Ins. Co. v.
431
244
Pa.
A. 2d
Medycki,
655
67,
we
(1968),
position
disputes
reaffirmed our
that all
under
arising
the uninsured motorist
are cov-
coverage
ered
the arbitration
In
agreement.
we
case,
held that
the arbitrator
and not a
should
court
deter-
mine whether the insured had or had not forfeited his
uninsured motorist coverage
virtue of
non-
alleged
compliance
provisions.
with certain
Most re-
in Merchants
cently,
Mutual
Ins. Co. v. DiUmberto,
433 Pa.
The case at Bar is no different from Kuhn Medycki, or DiUmberto and there is no basis for departure from our refusal to allow the arbitration provision of uninsured motorist coverage be ignored, thereby re- quiring the courts to questions determine which the parties have agreed submit to arbitration for deter- mination. We no will more read court proceedings into the arbitration clause in the instant case than we did and Kuhn, Medycki DiUmberto.
The decree of the court below is vacated, case remanded with directions to dismiss the for declaratory judgment. Eagen
Mr. Justice concurs the result. Dissenting Opinion Mr. Justice Roberts: I believe that we should reach the merits of this case the decree and reverse court below, accord- I dissent. ingly Merchants my opinion, Mutual Ins. Co. Di v. ys Pa. 248 A. 2d 433 842
Umberto, (1969), Harle v. Ins. Co. Mutual Medycki, ville Pa. 67, 244 A. 2d Nat. M. Grange Ins. Co. (1968), Kuhn, *5 26-
Pa.
inappli-
I the fact that if in we allow cases which party neither desires arbitration to be decided may judicial increase courts, workload.1 That, option parties however, an which the with- must have, jurisdictional Legislature. limits The set hardly third-party Court can claim that it is a bene- ficiary parties’ insurance and thus de- contract, provision mand the enforcement of a which neither party wishes to utilize.
Although I properly believe that this case is before my the decision courts, view of the court below inwas on error I and would merits, reverse its de- question, termination. At the time of the accident in appellant working was a toward student, his Ph.D. at Lehigh University par- Pennsylvania. in Bethlehem, His Appellant ents lived California. continued to main- voting parents’ tain his address at his California home kept clothing, and voted there absentee he ballot; appellant books and hobbies there; and to continued personal only having mail receive his in California, professional (and junk mail) his mail delivered to his Appellant college stipend during address. received a Lehigh, “marginally made him his studies at parents self-supporting;” occasionally continued to clothing spending money, him send however, gave spending money during him he times returned from his studies. home on breaks appellant college, private lived in While rooms, apartments college graduate other shared stu- Appellant stated that at the dents. time the aeci- out, however, point expeet that I see no reason 1 I should to any great number eases which both to be there will go arbitration. not to choose he- Pli.D. intended continue work toward Ms
dent, fellowship University. by taking teaching at Bueknell improper I On these believe that it was facts, hold not a mem- the court below to meaning of of his household within ber policy. It of insurance course is hornbook law ambiguous will where or unclear, aii interpret- against the be construed will be insurer, order,to give sustaining coverage. the result See, ed Lovering Indemnity e.g., Erie Pa. Co., (1963). clear A. 2d 365 case before it is us, roots to me that continued háve *7 parents’ in California. He continued to have his home legal not one else- there, his residence and did establish fact, Pennsyl- physically The he in that' was where. mere, physi-. particularly significant. “If not vania is presence with- establish a cal is sufficient to residence, taking change a one could his residence out more, Appleton v. 228 Merchants Ins. vacation.” Mut. Co., Certainly (1962). insur- 2d 444 had the 442, N.Y.S. presence key company physical intended be the to ance ascertaining coverage, ex- it could used in have factor plicit stating, language Id. at see but use so 446, language as “resident of the same household” such against indicate a construed insurer, when must, intention. differént permanent
Appellant not consider as did his home parents anywhere one in which his lived. His but private in at and school—rooms houses, residence apartments other shared with students —can be charac- Appellant nothing more than transient. as terized any other household than his established never opinion my strong parents, this is in indication and member household.2 remained he 2 especially true married, since was not is and This “family” own, although residence of established not thus Courts jurisdictions willing other have shown a ness to interpret “household” at least as word broadly requests Appleton here. See Merchants Ins. part Mut. is supra (child Co., army of parents’ household) ; Casualty Mazzilli v. Accident Ins. Co. 35 N.J. 170 A. Winterthur, Switzerland, 1, 2d 800 (1961) child although (parents, separated, still part of same Barker v. Iowa Mut. Ins. household); 241 N.C. 2d Co., 85 S.E. al (1955) (child, married though living wife college, part of parents’ Fruchtman v. State Farm household). Mutual Auto. Ins. 274 Minn. Co., N.W. 2d 299 (1S68) (child at mother college and not house same hold case relied ), only on by appellee, inapposite. is In the court read Fruchtman, “household” narrowly insurer,3 order hold to against Since given each interpreted be against the insur er, the broadest give possible coverage that be may produced by in ambiguous there is language, nothing consistent with the decision in Fruchtman one I believe should we reach this case. summary, my view should reach the merits of this case and should reverse the decision of court The if below. so can parties, they go then desire, *8 limited solely question arbitration, damages. Pomeroy Mr. Mr. Jones Justice Justice join opinion. eyen married, possible been it would still be for him policy. household within to remain Ms Barker See Co., Ins. 241 (1955). v. Iowa N.C. 85 Mut. S.E. 2d 305 coverage persons in Fruchtman excluded The in the policyholder, apparently attempt as the household same Minn, 55, n.1, prevent at collusion. N.W. 2d n.1.