Stubits, D. v. Golden Gate National, 1160 WDA 2015

Decedent Richard F. Dombrowski’s estate (Stubits, administratrix) sued multiple nursing-home defendants for wrongful death and survival actions arising from care at Golden Living Center–Western Reserve.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration agreement; plaintiffs opposed and filed preliminary objections seeking to prevent arbitration.
The trial court overruled the defendants’ preliminary objections and refused to compel arbitration, relying on Pennsylvania Superior Court precedent holding Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) requires consolidation of wrongful death and survival actions for trial.
This Court initially affirmed the trial court in a May 26, 2016 judgment order, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court subsequently decided Taylor v. Extendicare, reversing the Superior Court rule.
In Taylor, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held Rule 213(e) conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and is preempted; state courts must compel arbitration of claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement even if consolidation would promote judicial efficiency.
On remand after Taylor, this Court reversed and remanded to allow the trial court to address fact-based defenses to the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement under generally applicable contract defenses and the FAA’s savings clause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) prevents enforcement of arbitration for wrongful death and survival claims	Rule 213(e) requires consolidation, so arbitration should not be compelled	FAA preempts state procedural rules; arbitration must be enforced	FAA preempts Rule 213(e); consolidation rule cannot block arbitration
Whether state courts may refuse arbitration for judicial-efficiency reasons	Judicial efficiency (consolidation) justifies denying arbitration	FAA requires enforcement even at expense of efficiency	FAA controls; efficiency alone cannot defeat arbitration
Whether the arbitration agreement should be enforced without further factual inquiry	Plaintiffs contend the agreement is unenforceable or invalid	Defendants seek immediate enforcement under FAA	Case remanded for trial court to consider fact-based validity/enforceability defenses under general contract law and FAA savings clause
Standard/process on remand for assessing arbitration defenses	Plaintiffs entitled to litigate defenses	Defendants entitled to arbitration if agreement is valid	Remand for district court to resolve factual questions about validity/enforceability consistent with Taylor and FAA

Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 147 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2016) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act)
Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa. Super. 2015) (Superior Court decision applying Rule 213(e) to bar arbitration, later superseded by the Supreme Court)