Tuomi, D. v. Extendicare

J-A04019-15
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
DONALD E. TUOMI, ADMINISTRATOR OF IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE ESTATE OF MARGARET C. TUOMI, PENNSYLVANIA
DECEASED
EXTENDICARE, INC., EXTENDICARE
HEALTH FACILITIES, INC., D/B/A
HAVENCREST NURSING CENTER,
EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITY
HOLDING, INC., EXTENDICARE HEALTH
SERVICES INC., EXTENDICARE HEALTH
NETWORK, INC., EXTENDICARE
HOLDINGS, INC., KATHLEEN GASTAN,
AN INDIVIDUAL; KENRIC MANOR FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP D/B/A KENRIC
MANOR
APPEAL OF: EXTENDICARE, INC.,
EXTENDICARE HEALTH FACILITIES,
INC., D/B/A HAVENCREST NURSING
CENTER, EXTENDICARE HEALTH
FACILITY HOLDING, INC., EXTENDICARE
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., EXTENDICARE
HEALTH NETWORK, INC., EXTENDICARE
HOLDINGS, INC.
No. 865 WDA 2014
Appeal from the Order Entered April 24, 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County
Civil Division at No(s): 2013-1583
BEFORE: BOWES, WECHT, AND STRASSBURGER,* JJ.
JUDGMENT ORDER BY BOWES, J.: FILED APRIL 07, 2017
The Supreme Court vacated our decision in this case and remanded it
for reconsideration in light of Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities,
* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
J-A04019-15
Inc., 147 A.3d 490 (Pa. 2016). We reverse and remand to the trial court for
further proceedings.
The relevant history of this appeal was set forth in this Court’s June
18, 2015 Opinion affirming the trial court’s order overruling Appellants’
preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to compel arbitration.
Tuomi v. Extendicare, Inc., 119 A.3d 1030 (Pa.Super. 2015), vacated and
remanded, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 2565 (Pa. November 15, 2016). In affirming the
trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration, this Court relied upon our decision
in Taylor v. Extendicare Health Facilities, Inc., 113 A.3d 317 (Pa.Super.
2015), which held that Pa.R.C.P, 213(e) and 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301(a) required
consolidation of wrongful death and survival actions for trial.
However, our Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed this Court’s
decision in Taylor, holding that Pa.R.C.P. 213(e) conflicts with the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA) and is pre-empted. Taylor, 147 A.3d at 510. The
Court held that Section 2 of the FAA mandates that state courts compel
arbitration of claims subject to a valid arbitration agreement, even at the
expense of judicial efficiency. Id. The Supreme Court in Taylor remanded
the case to the trial court to afford the parties “the opportunity to litigate
whether there is a valid and enforceable arbitration contract in accord with
generally applicable contract defenses and the FAA’s savings clause.” Id. at
513.
-2-
J-A04019-15
Executor asserted fact-based defenses to the validity and
enforceability of the arbitration agreement that were not addressed by the
trial court. Therefore, we remand to the trial court to address those
defenses.
Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this
case.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 4/7/2017
-3-