Phoenix Insurance v. Rosen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that \allowing either party to reject an award over the statutory minimum for liability coverage does not violate public policy\
• recognizing that, although the uninsured- and underinsured-motorist statutes serve the same public policy, “relevant differences exist between the statutory mandates,” including that “the underinsured-motorist statute has never required arbitration of any kind.”
• explaining the difference between substantive and procedural unconscionability, both of which are used to find an agreement unenforceable
• “[E]ven if we accept ... that [an] ... agreement is a contract of adhesion, such a finding does not render the agreement unenforceable.”
• if a modification or change in public policy is desired, the legislature, not the judiciary, must be appealed to
• “the General Assembly, which speaks through the passage of legislation, occupies a ‘superior position’ in determining public policy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).