This appeal concerned a priority dispute between insurers over statutory accident benefits payable after a motor vehicle accident, turning on whether the injured claimants were principally dependent for financial support on the named insured at the time of the accident.
The court held that appeals from insurance arbitrations are governed by the administrative law framework, and that the applicable standard of review was reasonableness rather than correctness.
Applying that standard, the court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable because it imposed an impermissible permanence requirement on a recent relationship, adopted a categorical approach inconsistent with the dependency jurisprudence, and relied on speculation rather than the evidentiary record.
The appeal was dismissed and the respondent insurer remained entitled to have the arbitrator's award set aside.
