Martz, N. v. Golden Gate National Senior Care
855 WDA 2015
Pa. Super. Ct.Jan 12, 2017Background
- Decedent Harry L. Otto died after residing at a Golden Gate-operated nursing home; his executrix, Nancy D. Martz, sued under the Wrongful Death Act and the Survival Act.
- Golden Gate moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement signed by the decedent.
- The trial court overruled preliminary objections to compel arbitration; the Superior Court initially affirmed that ruling.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allowance, vacated the Superior Court’s prior affirmance, and remanded for reconsideration under Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc.
- On remand the Superior Court recognized that Taylor held Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) (compulsory joinder of survival and wrongful-death claims) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
- The Superior Court reversed the trial court: it sustained defendants’ preliminary objections to compel arbitration and remanded for the trial court to decide any contract-law defenses (e.g., unconscionability, fraud, duress) to enforcement of the arbitration agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are wrongful-death beneficiaries bound by decedent's arbitration agreement? | Wrongful-death beneficiaries cannot be forced to arbitrate because the decedent’s agreement is not enforceable against them. | The arbitration agreement should bind claims derivative of the decedent and thus compel arbitration of all claims. | Wrongful-death beneficiaries are not bound; wrongful-death claims are not arbitrable against beneficiaries. |
| Does Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) requiring joinder of Survival Act and wrongful-death claims permit litigating survival claims in court when wrongful-death claims are nonarbitrable? | Rule 213(e) legitimately joinders survival and wrongful-death claims, permitting litigation of both without violating federal law. | Rule 213(e) does not conflict with the FAA and should not preempt enforcement of arbitration agreements covering survival claims. | Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) is preempted by the FAA to the extent it prevents arbitration of arbitrable survival claims; compulsory joinder cannot defeat the FAA. |
| Are the defendants’ preliminary objections to compel arbitration properly sustained? | Plaintiff argued arbitration should not be compelled because of the Rule and/or contract defenses. | Defendants argued the FAA requires arbitration and Rule 213(e) cannot bar it. | Preliminary objections to compel arbitration must be sustained, and claims severed unless arbitration agreement is invalid. |
| Should the trial court evaluate contract-law defenses to the arbitration agreement? | Plaintiff urged the court to decide defenses such as unconscionability before sending claims to arbitration. | Defendants urged enforcement unless a valid state-law defense precludes it. | Remanded for the trial court to address any generally applicable contract defenses (savings-clause issues) to the arbitration agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (a decedent’s agreement cannot be enforced against wrongful-death beneficiaries)
- Taylor v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015) (addressed joinder of survival and wrongful-death claims; later reviewed by Pa. Supreme Court)
- Tuomi v. Extendicare, Inc., 119 A.3d 1030 (Pa. Super. 2015) (related treatment of arbitration and joinder of post-death claims)