*1 Kemether, Appellants, Fred N. Patricia E. KEMETHER and v.

AETNA LIFE COMPANY. CASUALTY Pennsylvania. Superior Court of Argued 1994. Dec. Filed March *2 Kemether, Philadelphia, appellants. Noreen Scranton, Barrett, for appellee. Paul HESTER, OLSZEWSKI, JJ. JOHNSON Before OLSZEWSKI, Judge: in an automobile was involved Patricia Kemether

Appellant that she was forced alleged 1990. She accident in December on her side of the approaching truck large off the road accident, Patricia identified Immediately after the road. however, Patri- investigation, truck. After Agway truck as an truck, but Agway was not an concluded that the vehicle cia basis, vehicle. On this or unidentified “phantom” was a *3 Aetna of their appellee her husband notified Patricia and motorist clause of their claim under the uninsured policy. an of the vehicle as Patricia’s initial identification

Based on truck, “phantom” that it was not a Aetna claimed Agway under the uninsured vehicle, and therefore was not covered a of Seeking determination policy. motorist terms of against the declaratory judgment suit for liability, Aetna filed the action The trial court dismissed Agway. Kemethers and arbitration, specific to under the the matter and referred in if the truck in order to determine policy, terms of the or unidentified vehicle. “phantom” a question was 18, 1993, issued an award the arbitrators On October to Aetna, prove that the Kemethers had failed finding favor The “phantom” result of a vehicle. that the accident was the or vacate award of a to petition Kemethers filed arbitrators, by trial court Order was denied followed. appeal 1994. This April dated this must be appeal Aetna asserts that Initially, a to denying lies from an order appeal as no quashed, that an order noting is correct in modify. Aetna appealable an is not denying 7320(a). 7320(a). See also section order under Farm Dunlap by Hoffman (1988). is for proper procedure The award, confirming the an order the court to enter of the order entry following with or simultaneously either It is from this Id. denying an lies. order that confirming in the order was entered confirming no such While quash case, inappropriate find that it would instant confirming entering responsibility appellant. not the judge, trial case lies with the in such a quash proper not be found that it would this Court after the entered confirming no order was where 169, 546 A.2d at to vacate. 377 of a denial 1211. We wrote: de- [Ojnce vacate was to set aside i.e. appellant’s file an nied, application obligation appellant’s it was not rather, but, recovery, appellant confirm the award confirming an order trial court to enter of the obligation denying appellant’s the order simultaneously with the award aside. to set court to enter the trial upon it is incumbent Id. will not be the Kemethers required failure to enter trial court’s for the punished order. not appropriate, was determining quashal

After so that to the trial court remanded Dunlap judgment. and reduced could be entered correct order *4 remand find such a at 1211. We 546 A.2d Pa.Super. deny the order Dunlap, in the case. unnecessary Id. judgment. to never reduced to vacate was ing simply judgment, that was reduced any Without we do Id. Unlike appeal. not address the could judg- it is a appeal.1 in the instant While judgment a have 11, 1994, petition to denying April Appellants reduced 6, 1994. modify judgment on June vacate or 472 it modify, to vacate or on the order

ment reveal, fails to judgment. a final record is nonetheless not reason the award should suggests, any why and no party the trial court denied the have been confirmed after no at all would purpose award, that order to to confirm the reduce served a remand back to this Court. See appeal right and judgment, bring Co., n. Keystone v. Ins. Popskyj 1184,1186 the merits of an (addressing n. 1 A.2d and modify of a taken from the denial entering act” of to remand for the “ministerial refusing order). ir- Thus, notwithstanding procedural the merits of this we will address regularity, below, trial court refused to In the proceedings to vacate raised in the Kemethers’ address the issues Penn applied arbitrators. The trial court modify award of 1307(d), for provides Procedure which Rule of Civil sylvania explanatory In the limited review of arbitration awards. very (d), if with an party unhappy it is note to section states It is for a trial de novo. remedy the sole is there are obvious mathemati in limited situations where only that the trial court can or vacate cal or errors language 1307(d). Since a trial de novo. Pa.R.C.P. an award without rather than for petitioned the Kemethers novo, not involve obvious and their claims did a trial de errors, the trial court denied language mathematical or the Kemethers’ claims. While addressing without 1307(d), incorrectly Pa.R.C.P. it correctly trial court read case. that rule to this applied under an against brought claim Aetna is The Kemethers’ contract, that arbitration specifically states Pennsylvania provisions in accordance with the of the will be this contract Arbitration Act. R.R. 53a-54a. Since Uniform under the for arbitration writing expressly provides is Act, it is presumed of the Uniform Arbitration provide statutory subchapter A. 7302(d); Ins. v. Cigna Squires, Co. See (1993). 206, 208, Under the *5 party must subchapter, appealing of this modify award. Pa.C.S.A. the the court vacate contrast, Rule of Civil Pennsylvania In §§ 7314 and 7315. de 1307(d), appeal by a trial requires Procedure compul- novo, actions which are submitted to only applies to Therefore, we sory subchapter C. pursuant 1307(d) the trial Pa.R.C.P. judge incorrectly applied find that the case. arbitration, statutory may A a party subchapter Under modify the filing an award by §§ 7315. award filed in accordance with the Kemethers the correct trial have addressed the statute. the court should in the issues raised the Since the raised address claims properly trial failed to error, hear must to the trial court and order it to remand facts, record, and rule on claims findings make on the of error. vacated. with Jurisdiction

Order Remanded instructions. relinquished. JOHNSON,

Dissenting opinion by J.

JOHNSON, dissenting. Judge, I find I must quashed,

Because that this should respectfully dissent. N.

A Patricia E. and Fred Kemether dispute arose between Life an insurance claim Casualty Company and Aetna over parties’ Pursuant to the filed Kemethers.

contract, was submitted to arbitration under dispute Act, § 7301 et and the seq., Uniform Arbitration Pa.C.S. Subsequently, found in favor of the Kem- arbitrators Aetna. ethers filed to vacate or The trial and judgment award. court denied was petition, However, the trial court did not issue an order entered. ap- now arbitration award. The Kemethers their peal, arguing the trial court erred award. Arbitration of the Uniform pertinent part, provision governing appeals Act states: Appeals from court orders

( n ) be taken from: appeal may rule. —An General *6 (1) arbi- compel A an denying application court order ' under section' 7304.... tration

(2) arbitra- application stay A order an granting court 7304(b). tion made under section (3) of denying A confirmation confirming court order an award.

(4) an award.. modifying correcting A court order directing a vacating A court order an award without rehearing.

( n ) pursu- or decree of a court entered judgment A final subchapter. the of this ant to § 42 Pa.C.S. case, denied the although

In the the trial court award, it not to vacate the did subse- Kemethers’ the arbitration award. confirming enter an order quently 7320, § Therefore, the terms of the express appealable have not order. See presented Kemethers Ins., 165, Pa.Super. Farm 377 Dunlap by Hoffman (1988) (“a 1209, order denying under appealable to vacate ... is not an 7320(a)”). Rather, Majority recognizes, proper § the “[t]he as the confirming the court to enter an order procedure is for following with or simultaneously either It denying of the order entry Majority that an lies.” confirming appeal is from this Seay Proper- see also v. Prudential op. citing Dunlap; at (1988), 37, 543 A.2d 1166 Casualty ty (1989) (order dismissed, 105, 565 A.2d 159 523 Pa. entry judgment well as confirming arbitration award as to ap- 7316 are prerequisites thereon accordance with Therefore, quashed. should be present appeal peal). lie, rea- Majority this determining appeal may In to enter a was incumbent the trial court upon sons that it finds that Majority order. confirming court’s for the held accountable not be Kemethers should refer to conclusion, colleagues my this reaching failure. case: Dunlap from following language de- vacate was [Ojnce aside i.e. to set appellant’s petition application file an nied, obligation to appellant’s it was not but, rather, recovery, denying appellant confirm the award an order court to enter of the trial obligation denying appellant’s with the order simultaneously the award aside. to set at Dunlap, supra, quoting Majority op. However, Majority’s conclusion A.2d at 1211. Court, presented that, in this when fact overlooks the party’s an insured from an order with award, remanded an adverse arbitration to set aside judgment confirming order entry of a the matter *7 Therefore, reliance on Majority’s thereon. lie, is may present appeal that of its decision

support Auto. Farm Mutual See also Carroll misplaced. (1992), n. 12 A.2d 223 n. (once denied, 641, 622 A.2d 1374 533 Pa. final denied, subsequent an award is to vacate to an respect entered with judgment is proper). is before an arbitration award to conclude I am constrained foregoing, Based on the award is fatal confirming the lack of an order quash I would appeal. Kemethers’ to the respectfully I must dissent. Accordingly,