Hetrick, B. v. Manorcare of Carlisle, PA
Hetrick, B. v. Manorcare of Carlisle, PA No. 266 MDA 2014
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Feb 13, 2017Background
- Decedent William Washington died after residence at a ManorCare-operated nursing home; executor Brandon Hetrick sued under the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Act.
- ManorCare moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement; the trial court overruled preliminary objections to compel arbitration.
- This Court initially affirmed the trial court, relying on Taylor v. Extendicare (Pa. Super. 2015) and Pisano, holding wrongful-death beneficiaries could not be bound by a decedent’s arbitration agreement and that joinder rules required surviving claims to proceed together.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance of appeal, vacated the Superior Court’s prior affirmance, and remanded for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Taylor (Sept. 28, 2016), which held that compulsory joinder rules that force arbitration waiver are preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- On remand, the Superior Court reversed its prior ruling: it held that Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) (compulsory joinder of Survival Act and wrongful-death claims) is preempted by the FAA, requiring severance of the wrongful-death and survival claims and that ManorCare’s preliminary objections to compel arbitration be sustained unless the arbitration agreement is unenforceable under generally applicable contract defenses.
- The court remanded to the trial court to adjudicate the executor’s fact-based defenses (e.g., unconscionability, fraud, duress) under the FAA’s savings clause; if those defenses fail, claims must proceed consistent with Taylor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wrongful-death beneficiaries can be compelled to arbitrate based on decedent’s agreement | Decedent’s arbitration agreement cannot bind wrongful-death beneficiaries; wrongful-death claims not arbitrable | ManorCare argued arbitration agreement should govern claims and compel arbitration | Court recognized beneficiaries not bound but ruled joinder rule requiring survival and wrongful-death claims to proceed together (Pa.R.C.P. 213(e)) is preempted by FAA; arbitration compelled unless agreement unenforceable |
| Whether Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) forcing joinder of wrongful-death and survival claims violates the FAA | Hetrick relied on prior Superior precedent that joined claims and allowed litigation | ManorCare argued joinder is permissible and does not conflict with FAA | Court held Rule 213(e) is preempted by FAA (per Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Taylor decision) and cannot be used to defeat arbitration rights |
| Whether Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) can be applied to avoid arbitration under state law | Hetrick contended state procedural rule could require joinder, preventing arbitration | ManorCare contended state rule controls procedure and should bind parties | Court held federal law (FAA) preempts state rule when rule effectively denies arbitration rights; state rule cannot be applied to compel litigation of arbitrable claims |
| Whether arbitration agreement is unenforceable due to contract defenses (savings clause) | Hetrick urged unconscionability/other defenses may render agreement invalid and thus avoid arbitration | ManorCare argued agreement is enforceable, so arbitration applies | Court remanded to trial court to decide fact-based defenses (unconscionability, fraud, duress); if defenses fail, arbitration enforced and claims severed per Taylor |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (held wrongful-death beneficiaries cannot be bound by decedent’s arbitration agreement)
- Taylor v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015) (addressed compulsory joinder and arbitration; later considered by Pa. Supreme Court)