Setlock v. Pinebrook Personal Care & Retirement Center
56 A.3d 904
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Pinebrook appeals an August 2, 2011 order denying a petition to compel arbitration in a wrongful death action by Mary Ellen Setlock, Executrix of Mary Ryan’s estate.
- Mary Ryan died from injuries after being transported in a Pinebrook wheelchair; her transport lacked footrests and a safety harness was not used, contributing to her death.
- The Resident Agreement (Aug. 1, 2010) between Pinebrook and the decedent/resident included an arbitration clause (Para. 27) providing arbitration for disputes arising out of or in connection with the agreement.
- Pinebrook sought to compel arbitration under 42 Pa.C.S. § 7304(a), arguing the arbitration clause encompassed tort claims arising from the transportation-related allegations.
- The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling the arbitration clause did not cover tort claims; Pinebrook timely appealed.
- The majority affirms; the dissent would hold that the arbitration clause broadly encompasses the wrongful death tort claims related to services under the Resident Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause covers the wrongful death tort claim | Setlock argues the contract’s broad, unlimited clause encompasses all disputes, including torts. | Pinebrook contends the clause covers disputes arising from the Resident Agreement, not tort claims unrelated to the agreement’s scope. | Arbitration not compelled; wrongful death claim not within the agreement’s scope. |
| Whether the agreement’s scope can be read to include tort claims arising from transportation services | Setlock asserts tort claims arise from services under the agreement (transportation, escorts). | Pinebrook argues the agreement governs only financial/personal care aspects, not liability for transportation-related torts. | The agreement does not explicitly include tort liability; does not encompass the wrongful death action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Midomo Co., Inc. v. Presbyterian Housing Development Co., 739 A.2d 180 (Pa.Super.1999) (limits arbitration scope to specific contract-based disputes; not all tort claims automatically arbitrable under broad clause)
- Smay v. E.R. Stuebner, Inc., 864 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Super.2004) (broad contractual arbitration clause can encompass tort-related claims arising from the contract)
- Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp., 331 A.2d 184 (Pa.1975) (arbitration as to contract disputes; fraud in inducement severability guidance; not a blanket rule for all tort claims)
- Callan v. Oxford Land Development, Inc., 858 A.2d 1229 (Pa.Super.2004) (interpretation of arbitration clauses; gives priority to intent and contract language)
- Shadduck v. Christopher J. Kaclik, Inc., 713 A.2d 635 (Pa.Super.1998) (arb clause read broadly to include all grievances related to the contract)
- Elwyn v. DeLuca, 48 A.3d 457 (Pa.Super.2012) (arb scope to include disputes arising under the contract if intended by the parties)