Court Opinion

ID: 9701701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:32:27.056528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:27.532833
License: Public Domain

*498Opinion by
Hoffman, J.,
Concurring in the Result:
I concur in the decision of the majority for the following reason.
Even if the insurance policy before us had contained an arbitration clause, the question whether uninsured motorist coverage should be read into the policy, despite the omission of such coverage, does not seem a proper subject for arbitration. The insurer asserted this jurisdictional defect, and he is, therefore, entitled to have the award stricken.
In reaching my conclusion, I place no reliance on the decision in H. D. O’Neil v. Am. Fire Ins. Co., 166 Pa. 72, 30 A. 943 (1895). Furthermore, I wish to express no view on the critical question of whether a court could read the omitted coverage into this policy. I do not believe that the insured is foreclosed by our action today from pressing his claim in a proper forum.
Spaulding, J., joins in this concurring opinion.