Paul PETRAGLIA, Appellant, v. AMERICAN MOTORISTS INSURANCE COMPANY.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 30, 1982
444 A.2d 653
Argued Sept. 15, 1981.
The crux of the injustice in this case is that the asserted non-compliance in fact results from the confusion arising from the obvious tensions between the limitation of suit clause, as it has been judicially interpreted, and the “When loss payable clause.” The inequities flowing from that confusion are reflected in the Schreibers lack of notice of the necessity of utilizing the arbitration features of the policy, the uncertainty of the ripeness of the action during the one-year period from the date of the fire and, finally, that they were ultimately deprived of suing to recover for a loss sustained where the liability for the obligation has never been contested.
Richard D. Gilardi, Alfred S. Pelaez, Gilardi & Cooper, P.A., Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Charles Kirshner, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before O‘BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN and FLAHERTY, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
Order, 284 Pa.Super. 1, 424 A.2d 1360, Affirmed. See Schreiber v. Pennsylvania Lumberman‘s Mutual Insurance Co., 498 Pa. 21, 444 A.2d 647 (1982).
NIX, J., files a concurring opinion.
KAUFFMAN and WILKINSON, JJ., did not participate in the decision of this case.
NIX, Justice, concurring.
The record in this case does not present a situation warranting equitable intervention; see, e.g., Schreiber v. Pennsylvania Lumberman‘s Mutual Insurance Company, 498 Pa. 21, 26, 444 A.2d 647, 649 (1982) (Nix, J. dissenting). Therefore I concur in the result.