Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc.
77 A.3d 651
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Extendicare Homes, Inc. doing business as Belair Health and Rehabilitation Center operates a long-term care facility where Vincent F. Pisano resided at his death on April 24, 2010.
- Jamie Pisano, the decedent’s daughter with a power of attorney, signed an Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement requiring arbitration for disputes arising under the Agreement, including death or wrongful death.
- Vincent F. Pisano’s wrongful death action was filed January 4, 2012 by Michael V. Pisano as administrator; Jamie Pisano executed a disclaimer in 2011 regarding all proceeds in any wrongful death recovery.
- The trial court held that Pennsylvania wrongful death is an independent action, not derivative of the decedent’s survival rights, and denied Belair’s preliminary objection to arbitration.
- Belair argues the arbitration agreement binds the wrongful death claim because the scope includes death-related disputes and the claim is derivative of the decedent’s rights.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirms that wrongful death is an independent action, not bound by the decedent’s arbitration agreement with Belair, and that non-signatory wrongful death claimants may not be compelled to arbitrate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration agreement binds the wrongful death claimant | Pisano contends wrongful death is derivative of decedent's rights and should be bound by the agreement. | Belair argues the agreement covers all disputes including death and binds the wrongful death claimant as a party to arbitration. | Wrongful death claim not bound by decedent's arbitration agreement. |
| Whether wrongful death claims are derivative of the decedent’s rights | Pisano asserts the right to sue under wrongful death is derivative of decedent’s rights. | Belair contends wrongful death is derivative of decedent’s rights and should be subject to the agreement. | Wrongful death is independent, not derivative of the decedent’s rights. |
| Proper scope of the arbitration agreement in a wrongful death case | Agreement covers disputes related to the Resident’s stay, including death or wrongful death. | Agreement’s broad scope justifies arbitration of all claims arising from residency. | Scope includes death or wrongful death, but not binding non-signatories to arbitrate. |
| Public policy balance between arbitration and jury trial rights for wrongful death claimants | Arbitration is favored but should not infringe on wrongful death claimants’ jury trial rights. | Arbitration policy should control where a valid agreement exists. | Arbitration should not override non-signatory wrongful death claimants’ constitutional rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 178 Pa. 223, 35 A. 997 (Penn. 1896) (wrongful death not independent of decedent’s rights under earlier act)
- Setlock v. Pinebrook Personal Care and Retirement Center, 56 A.3d 904 (Pa. Super. 2012) (arbitration scope in survival and wrongful death context)
- Moyer v. Rubright, 651 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Super. 1994) (wrongful death derivative of underlying tort; venue considerations)
- Sunderland v. R.A. Barlow Homebuilders, 791 A.2d 384 (Pa. Super. 2002) (venue for wrongful death claims related to tortious act)
- DiSerafino v. Bucyrus-Erie Corp., 470 A.2d 574 (Pa. Super. 1983) (statutory limits to wrongful death recoveries; Worker's Comp context cited)
- Kaczorowski v. Kalkosinski, 184 A.2d 663 (Pa. 1936) (wrongful death action derivative from tort; independent statutory claimants)
- Gaffer Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Discover Reinsurance Co., 936 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Super. 2007) (FAA policy and contract-law interplay in arbitration)
- Elwyn v. DeLuca, 48 A.3d 457 (Pa. Super. 2012) (arbitration as threshold contract question; non-signatories may be bound only as intended beneficiaries)
- Peters v. Columbus Steel Castings Co., 873 N.E.2d 1258 (Ohio 2007) (decedent could not bind beneficiaries to arbitration; wrongful death independent)