Court Opinion

ID: 9756968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 22:11:31.897604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:33.614162
License: Public Domain

*145Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Van der Voort, J.:
The appellant appeals to this Court from an Order of the lower court denying him relief from a decision of a board of arbitrators. The case arose from a dispute between appellant and his insurance carrier, appellee, following appellant’s invocation of the uninsured motorist claim in his policy. Because the appellant, acting on his own account, made a prior settlement with the involved tortfeasor’s insurance carrier, and because his policy prohibited his retaining monies from such a settlement, appellee denied the appellant’s claim and invoked arbitration, pursuant to the terms of the policy.1 Charles Lehman, Esq., was appellant’s selected arbitrator; Carl W. Brueck, Jr., Esq., appellee’s; and Gilbert S. Solomon, Esq., was the arbitrator mutually-selected. The Board found as follows:
“And now, to-wit, this 12th day of July, 1974, the above matter was heard by a Board of three arbitrators named below. The Board heard testimony and reviewed the applicable law, and after careful review and due deliberation, makes the following award: The Board finds for the respondent, Nationwide Insurance Company. Arbitrator Charles Lehman, Esq., dissent (sic) from the finding of the majority. ...
“The finding of the Board is based on Press v. Md. Cas. Co., 227 Pa. Super. 537 (1974).
/s/ Carl W. Brueck, Jr.
/s/ Gilbert S. Solomon
/s/ Charles Lehman”
*146Appellant appealed this award to the Court of Common Pleas, which, by Order of September 12, 1974, confirmed the award as entered. It is from the Order that this appeal is taken.
The question here presented, which was raised properly prior to and at the Arbitration hearing, is whether arbitrator Brueck should have excused himself from the hearing of the case due to his past representation of the appellee, by whom he had been employed. There is no doubt that this case was brought under the precepts obtaining to common law arbitration. As such, the arbitrators are the final judges of law and fact. Reading Tube Corp. v. Steel Workers Federation, 173 Pa. Superior Ct. 274, 98 A.2d 472 (1953). Press v. Maryland Casualty Co., 227 Pa. Superior Ct. 537, 539, 324 A.2d 403, 404 (1974), refers to the “rule that in a common law arbitration the decision of the arbitrators is binding and cannot be attacked unless it can be shown by clear, precise, and indubitable evidence that a party was denied a hearing, or that there was fraud, misconduct, or other irregularity that cause the rendition of an unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable award.” The irregularity therein referenced goes to the process employed in reaching the decision. See also Hostetter v. Pittsburgh, 107 Pa. 419 (1884). It cannot be “presumed that the parties intended or agreed to be bound by anything short of an honest exercise of the judgment of the arbitrators upon the questions submitted.” Speer v. Bidwell, 44 Pa. 23, 26 (1862).
Thus we must consider whether arbitrator Brueck’s prior employment by appellee diseomfitted him in serving as arbitrator. The rule is of ancient origin that a judge should disqualify himself when he has served once as counsel for one of the parties. Kolb’s Case, 4 Watts 154 (1835). In Commonwealth v. Pavkovich, 444 Pa. 530, 283 A.2d 295 (1971), it was determined to be error, albeit harmless because no objection on point was raised, *147for a judge to sit on a case wherein he had been the prosecuting attorney at an earlier stage. See also Commonwealth v. Small, 81 Pa. Superior Ct. 600 (1928), for the proposition that a judge who was prior counsel to a party is not unfit to decide the case when his familiarity was on matters dehors the record. The court in City of Erie v. F.O.P., 57 D. & C. 2d 779 (1971) very reasonably pointed out that a party-designated arbitrator cannot be neutral in the sense that a judge must be, concluding that such an arbitrator may be partisan but not dishonest. With this latter view I am not in agreement.
Because they are the final decision-makers on the law and facts of the case, whose decision is final absent fraud or misconduct, arbitrators under common law stand as judges. Their function is judicial, and their conduct must be robed in judicial impartiality. Without reflecting in any degree upon his honesty or integrity2 and without deciding to what degree Arbitrator Brueck may or may not be partisan, I would hold that his prior professional representation of appellee cast a cloud upon his impartiality. Arbitration is an important function in the law wherein decisions are cloaked with finality. While it is not reasonable to expect to find three arbitrators with no innate or acquired sympathies as to certain cases, it is right to ask, at the least, that each be impartial to the extent of never having been in the employ of any of the litigants. To have a lesser standard would be dishonest to the expectation held by the parties and the needs of justice that a decision will be rendered by disinterested triers of fact and law. I think Arbitrator Brueck should have disqualified himself in the face of appellant’s objections to his sitting.
The majority of our Court remands this case to the lower court for a hearing and a determination by it as to *148whether or not Arbitrator Brueck was “actually biased." Just what standard shall be used to determine “actual bias” is not suggested. It seems to me that such a procedure is far too indefinite. I think the rule should be more precise, viz., that when an arbitrator has represented one of the parties and he is challenged by another party because of such representation he is disqualified. The challenging party should not have to prove bias.
I would remand to the lower court with directions to require reappointment, under the insurance contract, of a Board of Arbitration, whose function at a re-hearing of this case would be as the decider of such questions of law and fact as are presented to it.
Watkins, P.J., joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.

. “9. Trust Agreement. In the event of payment to any person under this endorsement:
(a) the Company shall he entitled to the extent of such payment to the proceeds of any settlement or judgment that may result from the exercise of any rights of recovery of such person against any person or organization legally responsible for the bodily injury because of which such payment is made;

. Arbitrator Brueck is a highly esteemed member of the bar. He has just been elected president of the Allegheny County Bar Association.