Ronald Coscia v. Chw Group, Inc. ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-0677-23
    RONALD COSCIA,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    CHW GROUP, INC.,
    Defendant-Respondent.
    ________________________
    Submitted March 13, 2024 – Decided July 2, 2024
    Before Judges Accurso and Gummer.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
    Law Division, Middlesex County, Docket No.
    DC-004585-23.
    McAndrew Vuotto, LLC, attorneys for appellant
    (Robert W. McAndrew, of counsel and on the briefs).
    CHW Group, Inc., attorneys for respondent (Richard
    M. Grace, on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Ronald Coscia appeals from an order dismissing his complaint
    against defendant CHW Group, Inc., doing business as Choice Home
    Warranty, based on an arbitration clause in an unsigned home warranty
    contract and ordering the parties to arbitration. We reverse.
    Coscia, who resides in Roanoke, Virginia, filed a Special Civil Part
    complaint alleging he entered into a one-year home warranty contract "number
    715799774" with Choice for an annual premium of $800, which he claims it
    breached by failing to repair or replace his furnace. He alleged claims for
    breach of contract and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to
    -20, seeking damages of $15,000, the former jurisdictional limit of the Special
    Civil Part before the July 1, 2022 amendment of Rule 6:1-1(c), plus costs and
    attorney's fees.
    Choice filed an answer denying the allegations of the complaint and a
    motion to dismiss based on the contract's mediation and arbitration clauses.
    Attached to counsel's certification in support of the motion was a packet
    mailed to Coscia on an unspecified date. The packet contained an unsigned
    letter to "Ron" from "The Team @ CHOICE," welcoming and commending
    him for choosing Choice, and advising him to "take a moment to read through
    this booklet. Inside you will find your contract, selected coverage, and a
    A-0677-23
    2
    variety of information that will help you get the most out of your new home
    warranty. Your coverage is dependent on the plan you have selected." A
    "Common Questions" section advised that "[c]overage begins 30 days after
    enrollment and receipt of applicable contract fees and continues for 365 from
    your start date." The welcome letter advised that plaintiff could "simply log
    on to our website located at www.ChoiceHomeWarranty.com and file your
    claim online." The contract enclosed included an arbitration clause but did not
    reference the contract number, and although it contained a line for a buyer's
    signature and date, both were blank. No application or enrollment form
    completed by Coscia was included in the motion papers.
    Coscia opposed the motion, contending Choice had failed to put forth
    any document supporting its allegation that he had agreed to the arbitration
    provision, noting the agreement Choice provided was unsigned and the packet
    mailed to him after his purchase. The trial court granted Choice's motion to
    dismiss without hearing argument and without a statement of reasons required
    pursuant to Rule 1:7-4(a), notwithstanding it signed a dispositive order
    dismissing the complaint with prejudice and ordering the parties to arbitration,
    an order appealable as of right pursuant to Rule 2:2-3(b)(8), even if only
    A-0677-23
    3
    staying the action as required by Rules 2:9-1(a)(3) and 2:9-5(c) and N.J.S.A.
    2A:23B-7(g).
    Because the enforceability of a contract, including an arbitration
    agreement, is a question of law, Atalese v. U.S. Legal Servs. Grp., L.P., 
    219 N.J. 430
    , 446 (2014), our review is de novo. Goffe v. Foulke Mgmt. Corp.,
    
    238 N.J. 191
    , 207 (2019).
    On appeal, Coscia renews his argument to the trial court that he was
    never asked to sign anything indicating his agreement to the arbitration
    provision in the unsigned contract provided to him after he signed up with
    Choice. He also adds that the trial court's failure to have explained its reasons
    for the decision requires, at the very least, a remand. Choice fails to address
    either argument. Instead, it points out that Coscia concedes both he and
    Choice are parties to a home warranty contract, number 715799774, that
    contains a mandatory arbitration clause governed by the Federal Arbitration
    Act, 
    9 U.S.C. §§ 1-16
    , which it argues passes muster under Kernahan v. Home
    Warranty Administrator of Florida, Inc., 
    236 N.J. 301
    , 319 (2019), requiring
    we affirm the trial court's decision to send the case to arbitration.
    The obvious factual issue in the case, unaddressed by both Choice and
    the trial court, is whether Coscia agreed to arbitrate this dispute. Both federal
    A-0677-23
    4
    and State law are unequivocally clear that "[a]n arbitration agreement is valid
    only if the parties intended to arbitrate because parties are not required 'to
    arbitrate when they have not agreed to do so.'" 
    Id. at 317
     (quoting Volt Info.
    Scis., Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 
    489 U.S. 468
    , 478
    (1989)). "[B]asic contract formation and interpretation principles still govern
    [arbitration agreements], for there must be a validly formed agreement to
    enforce." 
    Id. at 307
    .
    Coscia is not challenging the validity of the contract; he is trying to
    enforce the contract. His claim, as we understand it based on the sketchy
    record, is that he wasn't aware and did not understand the contract contained
    an arbitration clause until he received the document in the mail, after he had
    already enrolled in the warranty program and paid the fee. See Bernetich,
    Hatzell & Pascu, LLC v. Med. Rec. Online, Inc., 
    445 N.J. Super. 173
    , 184
    (App. Div. 2016) (holding "a party may not impose an arbitration clause after
    the parties have already exchanged consideration and created an enforceable
    contract"); Paul v. Timco, Inc., 
    356 N.J. Super. 180
    , 185-86 (App. Div. 2002)
    (holding "the purchaser of a warranty may not be compelled to arbitrate
    warranty claims where the only sales document the purchaser signed did not
    require arbitration and she did not subsequently agree to arbitration ").
    A-0677-23
    5
    Coscia's claim that Choice didn't make him aware of the arbitration
    clause until after he had enrolled in the warranty program and paid the $800
    fee must be decided by the court and not an arbitrator as it goes to whether he
    agreed to arbitrate the underlying dispute over repair or replacement of the
    furnace in the first place. See Goffe, 
    238 N.J. at 209
     (explaining the rule of
    Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co., 
    388 U.S. 395
    , 403-
    04 (1967), that a claim of "fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause
    itself — an issue which goes to the 'making' of the agreement to arbitrate" is
    decided by the court, whereas "claims of fraud in the inducement of the
    contract generally" must be decided by the arbitrator).
    We reverse the order dismissing the complaint with prejudice and
    remand for its reinstatement and further proceedings, including limited
    discovery on the purported agreement to arbitrate before consideration of any
    renewed motion to compel arbitration, which should be decided under the
    standards of Rule 4:46-2 and Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America,
    
    142 N.J. 520
    , 523 (1995). In the event summary judgment cannot be granted
    to either party, the court should resolve the issue through a summary trial
    limited to "'the making of the arbitration agreement or the failure, neglect, or
    refusal to perform the same,' as Section 4 of the [Federal Arbitration Act]
    A-0677-23
    6
    envisions." Guidotti v. Legal Helpers Debt Resol., L.L.C., 
    716 F.3d 764
    , 776 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting Somerset Consulting, LLC v. United Cap.
    Lenders, LLC, 
    832 F. Supp. 2d 474
    , 482 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (quoting 
    9 U.S.C. § 4
    )).
    Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.
    A-0677-23
    7
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-0677-23

Filed Date: 7/2/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/2/2024