Collier, J. v. National Penn Bank
128 A.3d 307
Pa. Super. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiff Jennifer Collier filed a putative class action in Philadelphia County alleging National Penn improperly charged overdraft fees in breach of account agreements.
- National Penn argued Collier’s fees were governed by a 2008 account agreement that used “available balance” and contained an arbitration clause; Collier relied on a 2010 agreement (no arbitration clause) and alleged it controlled.
- National Penn removed to federal court; the case was remanded. National Penn then filed preliminary objections: a petition to compel arbitration and a demurrer asserting federal preemption.
- The trial court overruled both preliminary objections, finding no agreement to arbitrate (2010 agreement controlled) and rejecting preemption.
- National Penn appealed the denial of the petition to compel arbitration; the court considered whether it also had appellate jurisdiction over the overruling of the preemption demurrer.
- The Superior Court affirmed the denial of arbitration (2010 agreement superseded 2008 agreement) and quashed the appeal as to preemption for lack of collateral-order jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid arbitration agreement governs Collier’s dispute | Collier: the 2010 Account Agreement governs and expressly supersedes earlier agreements; it contains no arbitration clause | National Penn: the 2008 Agreement (with arbitration clause) governed the account that incurred fees; affidavit shows 2008 agreement applied and was not superseded | Held: 2010 Agreement’s language (covering all present and future accounts) superseded 2008 Agreement for dispute resolution; no enforceable arbitration agreement |
| Whether state-law claims are preempted by the National Bank Act/OCC regulations (appealability) | Collier: preemption question is not separable/collateral and depends on factual development; not appealable now | National Penn: preemption is a controlling legal question warranting immediate review under the collateral-order doctrine | Held: appeal as to preemption quashed — appellant failed to satisfy collateral-order prongs (importance and irreparable loss); factual development remains necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor Shadduck v. Christopher J. Kaclik, Inc., 713 A.2d 635 (Pa. Super. 1998) (order denying application to compel arbitration is appealable)
- Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015) (standard of review for denial of arbitration: abuse of discretion; two-step test)
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (determine existence and scope of arbitration agreement)
- Elwyn v. DeLuca, 48 A.3d 457 (Pa. Super. 2012) (arbitration agreement analysis)
- Dasher v. RBC Bank(USA), 745 F.3d 1111 (11th Cir. 2014) (later deposit agreement can supersede earlier arbitration clause)
- Hassett v. Defoe, 74 A.3d 202 (Pa. Super. 2013) (application of collateral-order doctrine to preemption defense in mass tort context)
- Pridgen v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 905 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2006) (collateral-order review appropriate for immunity-like defenses at summary judgment)
- Rae v. Pennsylvania Funeral Directors Ass'n, 977 A.2d 1121 (Pa. 2009) (collateral-order doctrine standards; review of separability and factual development)
- In re Reglan Litigation, 72 A.3d 696 (Pa. Super. 2013) (declining collateral-order review where factual disputes remained)
- Goldstein v. Depository Trust Co., 717 A.2d 1063 (Pa. Super. 1998) (arbitration ruling appealable, separate preemption defense not properly before court)