J-A20017-16

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

PELLMAN ELECTRIC, INC. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

Appellee

v.

PARROT CONSTRUCTION CORP.

Appellant No. 1365 WDA 2015

Appeal from the Order Entered August 6, 2015

In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County

Civil Division at No: GD 10 002006

BEFORE: BOWES, J., STABILE, J., and MUSMANNO, J.

MEMORANDUM BY STABILE, J.: FILED FEBRUARY 9, 2017

Appellant, Parrot Construction Corp. (“Parrot”), appeals from the 

August 6, 2015 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County 

(“trial court”) granting Pellman Electric, Inc.’s (“Pellman”) motion to enter 

judgment on arbitration award. Upon review, we affirm.

The action arises from a construction subcontract entered into by 

Parrot and Pellman. On February 1, 2010, Pellman filed a complaint alleging 

three counts of breach of contract against Parrot. On April 20, 2010, Parrot 

filed an answer, new matter, and counterclaim asserting breach of contract 

and defamation claims. Following multiple discovery motions and motions to 

continue trial, the trial court granted a motion to stay on October 23, 2012 

after the parties had agreed to private arbitration. 
J-A20017-16

- 2 -

On August 5, 2014, the trial court appointed either John Lippl, Esquire, 

and/or John Perkins, Esquire, as arbitrator for the private arbitration. On 

April 2, 2015, the parties entered an arbitration agreement which appointed 

John Perkins, Esquire, as the arbitrator. An arbitration hearing was held on 

April 16, 2015, and on May 12, 2015, the arbitrator issued an award of 

$53,369.74 to Pellman. Subsequently, Pellman filed a motion to enter 

judgment on August 6, 2015. That same date, the trial court granted the 

motion noting that Parrot failed to file a petition to vacate or modify the 

arbitration award within thirty days. Parrot filed a motion for 

reconsideration on September 3, 2015. The following day Parrot filed a 

notice of appeal. The trial court did not direct Parrot to file a concise 

statement of errors complained of on appeal; however, the trial court 

entered an opinion on December 1, 2015, noting that it did not have 

jurisdiction over the motion for reconsideration as Parrot had filed a notice of 

appeal. 

Parrot raises two issues on appeal,1 which we quote verbatim.

I. Whether [the trial court] erred when it granted Pellman’s 

Motion for Entry of Judgment on Arbitration Award despite 

Parrot’s timely attempt to exercise their appellate rights in 

accordance with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) 

rules governing the arbitration between the parties[.]

a. Whether the arbitration agreement contemplated appellate 

arbitration[.]

____________________________________________

1

Parrot’s first issue contains two subparts.
J-A20017-16

- 3 -

b. Whether [Parrot] timely filed for appellate arbitration[.]

II. Whether the [trial court] erred when it held that the 

arbitration decision constituted a final award subject to 

confirmation under 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 7342[.]

Appellant’s Brief at 8.

Parrot’s first issue is an issue of contract interpretation, specifically, 

whether the arbitration agreement entered into by the parties includes 

appellate arbitration. 

In Pennsylvania, there are two types of arbitration, statutory 

arbitration and common law arbitration. Snyder v. Cress, 791 A.2d 1198 

1200 (Pa. Super. 2002). In the matter sub judice, the arbitration 

agreement contains the following language: “[t]he Arbitrator shall conduct 

the hearing in the manner that he deems reasonable and appropriate. The 

arbitrator will require witnesses to testify under oath. The Arbitration will be 

conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of American Arbitration 

Association.” Motion to Enter Judgment on Arbitration Award, 8/6/2015, at 

Ex. C. As the arbitration agreement does not specify that the Uniform 

Arbitration Act2applies and does state the AAA rules apply, the matter arises 

under common law arbitration. See also Runewicz v. Keystone 

Insurance Company, 383 A.2d 189, 191 (Pa. 1978) (an arbitration 

agreement that provided the rules of the American Arbitration Association 

apply is a common law arbitration).

____________________________________________

2 73 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 7301-7320.
J-A20017-16

- 4 -

The Appellant’s argument is that the parties had agreed to use the 

AAA rules, including the section titled “Optional Appellate Rules.” These 

rules provide 

[w]henever, by stipulation or in their contract, the parties 

have provided for the appeal of an arbitration award 

(“Underlying Award”) rendered under the auspices of the 

American Arbitration Association (AAA), or the Internal 

Centre for Dispute Resolution (ICDR), or have otherwise 

provided for these Appellate Arbitration Rules, they shall 

be deemed to have made these Rules, as amended and in 

effect as of the date of the submission of the appeal, a 

part of their agreement.

AAA Optional Appellate Rule A-1 pg 51. Parrot’s argument is fatally flawed 

as the agreement does not state that the optional appellate rules applied. 

Without such an agreement, the optional rules clearly do not apply. 

Moreover, the title of the AAA optional appellate rules clearly suggests these 

appellate rules do not automatically apply and must be elected by the 

parties. Parrot’s first claim fails.

Parrot’s second claim is that the trial court erred, when it entered the 

order confirming the arbitrator’s decision and to enter judgment, because 

the arbitration appeal was not final. A common law arbitration award “is 

binding and may not be vacated or modified unless it is clearly shown that a 

party was denied a hearing or that fraud, misconduct, corruption or other 

irregularity caused the rendition of an unjust, inequitable or unconscionable 

award.” 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7341. “Two features of common law arbitrations are 

that the award is binding and that any appeal therefrom to the Court of 
J-A20017-16

- 5 -

Common Pleas must be made within 30 days of the award.” Snyder, 791 

A.2d at 1201. As we previously determined that the AAA optional appellate 

rules did not apply to the instant action, and Parrot failed to file a petition to 

modify or vacate the arbitration award within 30 days, the arbitration was 

final and the trial court properly entered judgment upon Pellman’s motion. 

Parrot’s second claim fails.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/9/2017