FutureCare NorthPoint, LLC v. Peeler
143 A.3d 191
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2016Background
- Phyllis Butz signed a broad arbitration agreement on admission to FutureCare NorthPoint; it purported to bind heirs, personal representatives, and wrongful-death/survival claims.
- Butz died; her daughter Valerie Peeler sued FutureCare in circuit court for wrongful death (seeking a jury trial).
- FutureCare asserted the arbitration agreement as an affirmative defense and separately filed a freestanding petition under the MUAA to compel Peeler to arbitrate.
- The circuit court consolidated the two matters for a limited hearing on arbitrability, denied the freestanding petition to compel arbitration, and entered an order in the separate MUAA case that FutureCare could appeal.
- On appeal the Court of Special Appeals (on its own motion) addressed appellate jurisdiction and the principal substantive question: whether wrongful-death beneficiaries are bound by an arbitration agreement signed by the decedent.
Issues
| Issue | Peeler's Argument | FutureCare's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Is an order denying a freestanding petition to compel arbitration appealable? | The denial of the separate MUAA action is a final judgment; appealable. | The order should be appealable as the final judgment in the freestanding MUAA action (Rule citation language unnecessary). | Appealable: a denial of a freestanding petition that disposes of that separate action is a final judgment under CJP § 12-301. |
| 2) Can a decedent bind statutory wrongful-death beneficiaries to arbitrate via a pre-death arbitration agreement? | No; wrongful-death claims are independent statutory causes of action that belong to beneficiaries and cannot be contractually imposed on them by the decedent. | Yes; because wrongful-death claims derive from the decedent’s right to sue, the decedent’s arbitration agreement should bind beneficiaries. | No: ordinarily a decedent’s arbitration agreement does not bind wrongful-death beneficiaries; contract principles require consent and decedent lacked power to bind beneficiaries on this distinct statutory claim. |
| 3) Is a wrongful-death claim "derivative" such that forum/defenses applying to the decedent control the beneficiary’s claim (e.g., arbitration)? | Wrongful-death is independent; some defenses that negate the decedent’s substantive entitlement (e.g., release, contributory negligence) may bar a beneficiary, but arbitration is not such a defense. | The definition of “wrongful act” and derivative nature means beneficiaries take the claim subject to the decedent’s limitations (including pre-death arbitration). | Rejected FutureCare’s expansive derivative theory: while wrongful-death stems from the same conduct, it is a new independent cause of action; an arbitration agreement does not extinguish the decedent’s right to maintain an action in the way a release might. |
Key Cases Cited
- Addison v. Lochearn Nursing Home, LLC, 411 Md. 251 (2009) (denial of motion to compel arbitration filed in existing action is not immediately appealable)
- American Bank Holdings, Inc. v. Kavanagh, 436 Md. 457 (2013) (clarifies appealability: denial in existing action not final, but denial of freestanding MUAA petition that terminates that action is appealable)
- Mummert v. Alizadeh, 435 Md. 207 (2013) (wrongful-death action is a new and independent cause of action; not all defenses to the decedent’s claim bar beneficiaries)
- State ex rel. Melitch v. United Railways & Elec. Co. of Baltimore, 121 Md. 457 (1913) (pre-death release by injured person can bar a subsequent wrongful-death action because it extinguishes the underlying claim)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 346 Md. 122 (1997) (noting that a petition to compel arbitration filed as a freestanding action may be an appealable judgment)