Court Opinion

ID: 9713224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:11:20.461924+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:16.703570
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting:
It is interesting to note that with the exception of Etter v. Edwards, 4 Watts 63 (1835), appellees’ brief does not cite a single Pennsylvania case in support of the action of the court below. The majority then cannot be faulted for noting its result to be an “extraordinary measure of declaring the entire Arbitration procedure void ab initio” (first emphasis added) without the citation of a single case, Pennsylvania or otherwise.
I submit that the reason for the absence of authority is that the court below erred, and the majority of this Court further compounds the error.
It has long been the law of this Commonwealth that common law arbitration is in a favored position and may only be set aside upon a very limited review. That limited review has placed upon the aggrieved party the burden of showing by clear, precise and indubitable evidence that a fair hearing was denied, or that there was fraud, misconduct, corruption or some other irregularity of this nature on the part of the arbitrators which caused an unjust, inequitable or unconscionable award. The arbitrators at common law are the final judges of both law and fact, and their awards may not be disturbed for a mistake of either. Allstate Insurance Co. v. Fioravanti, 451 Pa. 108, 299 A.2d 585 (1973); Harwitz v. Selas Corporation of America, 406 Pa. 539, 178 A.2d 617 (1962); Freeman v. Ajax Foundry Products, Inc., 398 Pa. 457, 159 A.2d 708 (1960).
Such a policy of limited review is favored and upheld because to do otherwise would destroy the vitality of arbi*624tration as a quick and easy mode of obtaining justice. To broaden the review would invite delay and expense but settle nothing with the finality favored by our law. Arbitration would, if review were broadened, become merely an unnecessary step in the course of litigation. Westinghouse Air Brake Company Appeal, 166 Pa.Super. 91, 70 A.2d 681 (1950).
Appellees do not dispute this to be a common law arbitration, and indeed the court below found it to be under common law. Given that state of the record we need not explore further. For the purposes of this case, the arbitration must be construed to be under common law.
I believe the majority, by its opinion, erodes the arbitration system under common law. It is from such little leaks that dams finally collapse.
I would reverse the order of the court below and reinstate the award of the arbitrators dated October 23, 1975.
VAN der VOORT, Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent because I would affirm the corrected award of the Board of Arbitrators.