# Runewicz v. Keystone Insurance

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · January 26, 1978 · 476 Pa. 456

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764272

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph RUNEWICZ and Nellie Runewicz, His Wife, Appellants, v. KEYSTONE INSURANCE COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 26, 1978
- **Citations:** 476 Pa. 456; 383 A.2d 189; 1978 Pa. LEXIS 833
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Jones
- **Cited by:** 89 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764272

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing general rule that arbitrators’ mistakes of law not grounds for vacating award absent “showing of denial of a hearing, fraud, misconduct, corruption, or similar irregularity leading to an unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable award”
- stating that an arbitration clause providing for arbitration pursuant to AAA rules and indicating that the parties are bound by the arbitration decision denotes common law arbitration
- observing that a common law arbitration award, even if "blatantly at odds with the contract involved," will not be set aside absent "a showing of denial of a hearing or fraud, misconduct, corruption, or similar irregularity leading to an unjust, inequitable, or unconscionable …
- stating that a clause providing for arbitration pursuant to the AAA and indicating that the parties are bound by the arbitration represents common law arbitration

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
I join the Opinion of the Court. I wish to add only that I cannot comprehend how the Court can sustain the award of the arbitrator here, and yet refuse to have done so in County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, 476 Pa. 27 , 381 A.2d 849 (1977). We should be encouraging arbitration by respecting arbitration awards, rather than engaging in the unnecessary and unwise review of the entire arbitration process. Arbitration is too valuable a friend of the Court to be treated so lightly. See County of Allegheny v. Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union, supra (Roberts, J., dissenting); Bole v. Nationwide Insurance Co., 475 Pa. 187, 193 , 379 A.2d 1346, 1349 (1977) (Roberts, J., joined by Nix, J., dissenting). As Mr. Chief Justice Burger has stated:
“The notion that most people want black-robed judges, well-dressed lawyers, and fine paneled courtrooms as the setting to resolve their disputes is not correct. People with problems, like people with pains, want relief, and they want it as quickly and inexpensively as possible.”
Warren Burger, “Our Vicious Legal Spiral,” 16 Judges’ Journal 23, 49 (Fall, 1977).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9764272. Public record. Not legal advice.