Court Opinion

ID: 9717077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:57:22.411299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:16.121692
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HOLDRIDGE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. In order for the majority to find that the trial de novo provision is unconscionable, and thus unenforceable, it has engaged in the unsupported assumption that only the insurance company would seek to avoid an arbitration award of more than $20,000. Such an assumption is nothing more than pure speculation. Unlike appeals based upon the law, appeals to common sense often depend upon who is the appellant. Indeed, as long as we are engaging in pure speculation and appeals to common sense to support our holdings, I could speculate that a plaintiff expecting a $100,000 award from an arbitrator would invoke the de novo provision to avoid an arbitration award of $21,000, much to the chagrin of the insurance company that would have been happy to pay the arbitrator’s award. I admit that, from among our sister states that have ruled on this identical issue, only the Florida Supreme Court (Roe v. Amica Mutual Insurance Co., 533 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1988)), the New Jersey Appellate Court (Cohen v. Allstate Insurance Co., 231 N.J. Super. 97, 555 A.2d 21 (1989)), and the Arizona Appellate Court (Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mandile, 192 Ariz. 216, 963 P.2d 295 (App. 1997)) have rejected the temptation to speculate that an insured would never reject an arbitral award above the statutory financial responsibility limit. However, I find their analysis more persuasive. I agree with the reasoning of the Arizona court in Mandile: “When a plaintiff who thinks his case is worth $300,000 gets only $50,000 from the arbitrators, that plaintiff will want the option of an appeal (and may use that option as a leverage point in settlement discussions). Conversely, an insurance company that thinks a case is defensible, and is ordered to pay $14,999, may wish it could appeal but will lack the right to do so. The de novo appeal right, overall, is probably as important to plaintiffs as to defendants.” Mandile, 192 Ariz. at 221, 963 P.2d at 301. Similarly, in rejecting the same unsupported speculation adopted by the majority in this matter, the Cohen court noted: “A variety of situations can be hypothesized in which an insured would welcome the opportunity to reject an arbitration award and demand a trial. *** In short, while we might speculate that the policy provision is unfairly tilted in favor of Allstate, that would be nothing more than guesswork. We cannot properly base a determination of unconscionability on unsubstantiated impressions and personal intuition. Evaluation and adjustment of the competing public and private interests are best left to the legislative and administrative process.” Cohen, 231 N.J. Super. at 102, 555 A.2d at 24. For the reasons articulated above, I would reverse the trial court judgment for Parker and grant American Family’s counterclaim for a trial on all issues. I dissent on that basis.