917 F.3d 20
1st Cir.2019Background
- Emma Schrader was admitted to Golden Living Center — Heathwood; her daughter Jackalyn (with power of attorney) signed an undated Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement on Emma's behalf that required mediation and binding arbitration and defined “Resident” to include persons whose claims are derived through or on behalf of the Resident.
- Emma died in 2013; Jackalyn (as personal representative) filed a Massachusetts wrongful death action in 2016 alleging negligence leading to death.
- GGNSC (the nursing-home entities) filed in federal court under the Federal Arbitration Act to compel arbitration; the district court found the arbitration agreement valid and enforceable and predicted Massachusetts law would treat wrongful death claims as derivative of the decedent’s claim, thus subjecting them to arbitration.
- Jackalyn appealed the district court’s decision to compel arbitration; the First Circuit found Massachusetts law unclear on whether beneficiaries’ wrongful death claims are derivative or independent of the decedent’s claims.
- Because the resolution turns on unsettled state-law questions implicating statutory interpretation, common-law development, and policy, the First Circuit certified two questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and retained jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wrongful death claim of the statutory heirs is independent or derivative of the decedent's cause of action | Schrader: Wrongful death claims are the beneficiaries’ independent causes of action under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 229 § 2 and thus not bound by the decedent’s arbitration agreement | GGNSC: Wrongful death claims (at least under §2(1)/(2)) require proving negligence against the decedent and therefore are derivative of the decedent’s claim and subject to the decedent’s arbitration agreement | First Circuit: Massachusetts law is not clearly settled on this; question certified to the SJC for authoritative resolution |
| If not resolved by independent/derivative characterization, whether the beneficiary’s wrongful death claim is nonetheless subject to the decedent’s arbitration agreement (e.g., because the agreement purports to bind persons with claims derived through the Resident) | Schrader: Even if some derivative aspects exist, beneficiaries’ statutory rights and available damages differ and thus are not necessarily bound | GGNSC: The Agreement’s language and the derivative nature of the claim can bind beneficiaries; some jurisdictions bind beneficiaries even when claims are styled as independent | First Circuit: Unclear under Massachusetts law whether an arbitration clause like this binds beneficiaries in those circumstances; certified to the SJC |
Key Cases Cited
- Rent-A-Ctr., W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (arbitration is a matter of contract)
- Arthur Andersen LLP v. Carlisle, 556 U.S. 624 (2009) (state contract law determines who is bound by arbitration agreements)
- Gaudette v. Webb, 284 N.E.2d 222 (Mass. 1972) (Massachusetts recognizing that wrongful death claim is, in a real sense, the beneficiary’s cause of action)
- Johnson v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., 2 N.E.3d 849 (Mass. 2014) (SJC reserved question whether decedent’s arbitration agreement binds statutory beneficiaries)
- McCarthy v. Wood Lumber Co., 107 N.E. 439 (Mass. 1914) (earlier Massachusetts treatment viewing wrongful death actions as independent)
- In re Engage, Inc., 544 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2008) (certification to state court appropriate when state law outcome is not reasonably clear)