Question

In the case of Worldwide Insurance v. Klopp, the Supreme Court of Delaware found that ________.

A) a contract provision requiring arbitration and then permitting appeal by either party was void as unconscionable.
B) the contract provision requiring arbitration was clear, unambiguous, and fair to both parties.
C) the arbitration clause in Klopp's auto insurance contract was valid because it furthered the state policy favoring the use of arbitration to resolve disputes.
D) the automobile insurance policy was governed by UCC, Article 3

Answer 1

The question about Worldwide Insurance v. Klopp does not provide the correct information to determine the Supreme Court of Delaware's finding, as none of the given options relate to a known outcome. Legal issues like arbitration in insurance contracts require exact case law for an accurate answer.

Step-by-step explanation:

In the case of Worldwide Insurance v. Klopp, the correct statement is not provided in the options given. To assess this question properly, information on the case details would be required, but based on the scenario described, none of the options seems to directly relate to a known case outcome related to arbitration in insurance contracts. Supreme Court cases often discussed in relation to insurance, arbitration, and commerce, such as Shelley v. Kraemer or United States v. Lopez, are generally concerned with civil rights and constitutional law rather than specific contract provisions in insurance law. For precise legal issues such as those concerning insurance contracts and arbitration clauses, it is imperative to have the correct case law reference.