J. A 120 40 /18

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
– SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
ERIC AND SIGRID KUNZ, H/W, : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA Appellants :

: v. : : TOLL BROTHERS, INC., TOLL PA II, L.P. , TOLL PA GP CORP. , BROAD RUN ASSOCIATES, L.P. , TOLL ARCHITECTURE, INC., AND TOLL ARCHITECTURE I , P.A. : : : : : No. 3107 E DA 20 17

Appeal from the Order August 14, 2017 , i n the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County Civil Division at No. 2016

- 01218

- MJ

BEFORE: BOWES, J., OTT , J., AND FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.: FILED JULY 16, 2018
Eric and Sigrid Kunz, husband and wife, appeal from the August 14,

2017 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County denying

their motion for reconsideration of the trial court ’ s Dece mber 12, 2016 order
granting the petition of appellees Toll Brothers, Inc.; Toll PA II, L.P.; Toll PA
GP Corp.; Broad Run Associates, L.P.; Toll Arch itecture , Inc.; and Toll

Architecture I , P.A. (collectively, “ Toll Brothers ” ) , to compel arbitration and

r einstating the December 12, 2016 order

. We quash this appeal.
The trial court set forth the following:J. A 120 40 /18

- 2

- Procedural History
On July 19, 2016, [appe llants] filed their complaint because of what they contend are “ substantial construction defects ” and because of [Toll Brothers ’ ] [ “ ] misrepresentations regarding the quality of the construction ” of their home. [Appellants ’ ] complaint assert[s] claims agai nst [Toll Brothers] for violation of Pennsylvania ’ s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (Count I) , breach of express warranty (Count II), breach of implied warranty (Court III), negligence (Count IV), negligent supervision (Count V), and civ il conspiracy (Count VI).
On August 31, 2016, [Toll Brothers] filed a petition to compel arbitration pursuant to arbitration language within the documents related to the purchase of [appellants ’ ] home. [Appellants] opposed the petition arguing that the a rbitration provisions in the governing documents were unenforceable “ as they are indefinite[,] vague and contradictory. ” Following briefing by the parties, on December 12, 2016, the court entered an order granting [Toll Brothers ’ ] petition to compel arbit ration.
On December 22, 2016, [appellants] filed an emergency motion asking the court to reconsider its decision or amend its order for immediate appeal. On January 3, 2017, the court entered a new order striking its December 12 th order compelling arbitr ation pending further consideration by the court. The parties also were given additional time to conduct discovery on the issue of the allegedly “ different ” arbitration provisions.
On January 12, 2017, [Toll Brothers] then filed their own motion to vacate, requesting that the court reinstate its original order compelling arbitration. On February 24, 2017, the court denied [Toll Brothers ’ ] motion to vacate and clarified for the parties the issues that were the subject of the reconsideration order. A fter additional briefing and oral argument held on July 25, 2017, [appellants ’ ] motion for reconsideration is now ripe for decision.J. A 120 40 /18

- 3

- The Relevant Arbitration Provisions
There are two documents at issue in this dispute. The first is an “ Agreement of Sa le ” ( “ AOS ” ) between [appellants ] and [appellee] Broad Run [ Associates, L.P. ( “ Broad Run ” ) ]

. The second document is a limited warranty entitled “ Toll Brothers Limited Warranty ” ( “ Limited Warranty ” ). Both documents contain arbitration provisions.

The arbitr ation clause in the AOS executed by [appellants] and Broad Run reads as follows:
ARBITRATION : Buyer . . . hereby agrees that any and all disputes with Seller, Seller ’ s parent company or their subsidiaries or affiliates arising out of the Premises, this Agreement, the Home Warranty, any other agreements, communications or dealings involving Buyer, or the construction or condition of the Premises including, but not limit ed to, disputes concerning breach of contract, express and implied warranties, personal injuries and/or illness, mold

- related claims, representations, and/or omissions by Seller, on

- site and off

- site conditions and all other torts and statutory causes of
a ction ( “ Claims ” ) shall be resolved by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules and procedures of Construction Arbitration Services, Inc. or its successor or an equivalent organization selected by Seller. If CAS is unable to arbitrate a particular claim, then that claim shall be resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the Construction Rules of Arbitration of the American Arbitration Association or its successor or an equivalent organization selected by Seller. In Addition, Buyer agrees that Buy er may not initiate any arbitration proceeding for any Claim(s) unless and until Buyer has first givenJ. A 120 40 /18

- 4

- Seller specific written notice of each claim (at 3103 Philmont Avenue, Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006, Attn: Warranty Dispute Resolution) and given Seller a reasonable opportunity after such notice to cure any default, including the repair of the Premises, in accordance with the Home Warranty. The provisions of this paragraph shall be governed by the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. and shall survive settlement.
The arbitration clause in the Limited Warranty between [appellants] and [appellee] Toll Brothers, Inc., reads as follows:
Any disputes between YOU and US related to or arising from this LIMITED WARRANTY will be reso lved by binding arbitration. Disputes subject to binding arbitration include but are not limited to:

A. WE do not agree with YOU that a DEFICIENCY or DEFINED STRUCTURAL ELEMENT FAILURE is covered by the LIMITED WARRANTY;

B. WE do not correct a DEFICIENC Y or DEFINED STRUCTURAL ELEMENT FAILURE to YOUR satisfaction or in a manner that YOU believe this LIMITED WARRANTY requires;

C. WE fail to respond to YOUR written notice of a DEFICIENCY or DEFINED STRUCTURAL ELEMENT FAILURE;J. A 120 40 /18

- 5

- D. Disputes related to COMMON Elements;

E. Alleged breach of this LIMITED WARRANTY[;]

F. Alleged violations of consumer protection, unfair trade practices, or other statutes;

G. Disputes concerning the issues that should be submitted to binding arbitration;

H. Dispu tes concerning the timeliness [to] binding arbitration requests.
Any binding arbitration proceeding will be conducted by an independent arbitration organization by the WARRANTY PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR. The rules and procedures followed will be those of the designated arbitration organization. A copy of the applicable ru les and procedures will be delivered to YOU upon request.
Trial court opinion, 8/14/17 at 1

- 3 (record citations omitted).
Following oral argument, the trial court entered its August 14, 2017
order denying appellants ’ motion for reconsideration of its Dec ember 12, 2016
order granting T oll Brothers ’ petition to compel arbitration and r einstating its
December 12, 2016 order. On September 12, 2017, appellants filed a notice
of appeal to this court. The trial court then order ed appellants to file a concise
statement of errors complained of on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b).J. A 120 40 /18

- 6

-

Appellants timely complied. In response, the trial court entered an order
stating that “ [t]he present appeal seeks review of an order direct ing this
matter to arbitration [; however, ] [u]nder Pennsylvania law, such an order is
not final and appealable. ” 1 (Order of court, 10/4/17 at 1.)
On October 23, 2017, this court ordered appellants to show cause within
ten days as to the bas is of our jurisdiction over this matter. (Order of court,
10/23/17.) Appellants timely complied by filing a “ brief in support of
jurisdiction over this appeal. ” On November 16, 2017, this court disc harged

the show

- cause order, referre d the appealability issue to this merits panel , and directed the parties to be prepared to address the issue in their briefs and
at oral argument. ( Id. )

.
We must , therefore, determine the appealability of the order that
appellants wish to appeal from because “ [t]he appealability of an order goe s directly to the jurisdiction of the [c]ourt asked to review the order. ” N.A.M.

v. M.P.W. , 168 A.3d 256, 260 (Pa.Super. 2017 ) (citation omitted)

. With
respect to appealability,

[t] his Court may address the merits of an appeal taken from “ (a) a final ord er or an order certified as a final order; (2) an interlocutory order [appealable] as of right; (3) an interlocutory order [appealable] by permission; or (4) a collateral order. ” Commerce Bank v. Kessler , 2012 PA Super 100, 46 A.3d 724, 728 (Pa. Super. 20 12), quoting Stahl v. Redcay ,

1 The trial court further noted that “ [e]ven if the present appeal were considered to be proper, the [trial] court believes that its [o]rder of August 14, 2017 , adequately explains the basis for the court ’ s decision. ” ( Trial court opinion, 10/4/17 at 2. )J. A 120 40 /18

- 7

- 2006 PA Super 55, 897 A.2d 478, 485 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 341(b).

“ As a general rule, only final orders are appealable, and final orders are defined as orders disposing of all claims and all parties. ” Am. Indep. Ins. Co. v. E.S. , 2002 PA Super 289, 809 A.2d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2002); see also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) ( “ [A]n appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a government unit or trial court. ” ).
Havalind v. Kline & Specter, P.C. , 182 A.3d 488 , 492 (Pa.Super. 2018 )

. Preliminarily, we note that “ [t]he law is clear that an order that has the
effect of directing the parties to arbitrate a matter is interlocutory and not
appealable. ” Niemiec v. Allstate Ins. Co. , 721 A.2d 807, 8 08 (Pa.Super.
1998) (citation omitted). Therefore, the interlocutory order compelling

arbitration from which appellants seek to appeal is not appealable as a final

order. Additionally, an interlocutory order compelling arbitration is no t
appealable as of right pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate

Procedure 311

. Pa.R.A.P. 311 (enumerating those interlocutory orders from
which an appeal may be taken as of right). Further, the order is not
appealable as an interlocutory order by permission unde r Pa.R .A.P. 312
because appellants never petitioned the trial court for permission to appeal

the interlocut ory order as required under Pa.R.A.P. 1311 and the trial court
never granted permission

.
Here , appellants maintain that this court has jurisdiction over this appeal
pursuant to the collateral order doctrine set forth in Pa.R.A.P. 313. Rule 313

defines a collateral order as “ a n order separable from and collateral to theJ. A 120 40 /18

- 8

-

main cause of action where th e right involved is too important to be denied
review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until
final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost. ”

Pa.R.A.P. 313(b).

[T]he collateral order doctrine is a specialized, practical application of the general rule that only final ord ers are appealable as of right. Thus, Rule 313 must be interpreted narrowly, and the requirements for an appealable collateral order remain stringent in order to prevent undue cor rosion of the final order rule. To that end, each prong of the collateral order doctrine must be clearly present before an order ma y be considered collateral.

Price v. Simakas Co. , 133 A.3d 751, 755 (Pa.Super. 2016) (internal citations
and quotation marks omitted).

“ With regard to the first prong of the collateral order doctrine, an order
is separa ble from the main cause of action if it can be resolved without an
analysis of the m erits of the underlying dispute and if it is entirely distinct

from th e underlying issue in the case. ” Shearer v. Hafer , 177 A.3d 850, 858
(Pa. 2018) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the issue

of whether the trial court erred when it entered its order compelling arbitration
is separate and distinct from the allegations of misrepresentation, violations
of Pennsylvania ’ s Unfair Trade Practices and Con s umer Protection Law, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, negligence, negligent
supervision, and civil conspiracy that appellant s set forth in their compla int

. Therefore, appellants satisfy the first prong of the collateral order doctrine.J. A 120 40 /18

- 9

-

With respect to the second prong of the collateral order doctrine, which

is the importance prong, “ a right is impor tant if the interests that would go
unprotected without immediate appeal are significant relative to the efficiency

interests served by the final order rule. Further, the rights inv olved must
implicate interests deeply rooted in public policy and going beyond the
particular litigation at hand. ” Id. at 858

- 859 ( citations, brackets, and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, appellants claim that the order compelling arbitration “ implicates
important rights that are too important to be denied im mediate review. ”
(Appellant ’ s brief at 4.) Specifically, appellants claim that the order violates
their due process right to be heard by the tribunal that has jurisdiction over
the matter, which , appellants assert , is the trial court. ( Id. ) Appellants

further contend that “ the rights at stake are not limited to appellants[, as
appellants] are one family out of many against whom Toll Brothers has
attempted to subject to the contr adictory provisions in the [a]greement of
[s]ale and [l]imited [w] arranty. ” ( Id. (emphasis in original)

. ) In so arguing,
appellants rely on Commonwealth v. Philip Morris, Inc. , 128 A.3 d 334
(Pa.Commw. Ct. 2015).
In that tobacco litigation case, 52 states and territories , including the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ( “ Commonwealth ” ) , entered into a master
settlement agreement ( “ MSA ” ) with certain tobacco manufacturers to settle

tobacco

- related health

- care costs. Id. at 338

- 339. The MSA provided thatJ. A 120 40 /18

- 10

-

“ [a]ny dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or relating to calculations
performed by, or any determinations made by, the Independent Auditor

. . . shall be submitted to binding arbitration. ” Id. at 339. A calculation dispute

arose as to whether certai n states qualified for payment adjustments for the
years 1999 to 2002, but was settled. The same calculation dispute then arose

for the year 2003. In that dispute, tobacco manufacture r s and most s tates,
including the Commonwealth , agreed to multi

- state a rbitration. The dispute

once again arose for the 2004 calendar year. Id. at 340. The Commonwealth
filed a motion to compel single

- state arbitration , and the tobacco

manufacturers fi l e d a motion to compel multi

- state arbitration. The trial court
granted the manufacturer s ’ motion to compel multi

- state arbitration.

The Commonwealth appealed claiming that the order compelling

multi

- state arbitration was a ppealable as a collateral order. Id. With respect
to the second prong of the collateral order doctrin e, the Commonwealth
contended that the order raised important issues with respect to its sovereign
rights in that it would not be permitted to select an indepe ndent arbitrator

that w ould apply Pennsylvania law but would be compelled to jointly decide

the a ppointment of the arbitrator with all of the states and territorie s subject

to multi

- state arbitrati on and that the arbitrator would apply generic legal
principles. Id. at 341. The Commonwealth Court agreed finding that the
Commonwealth satisfied the second prong of the collateral order doctrine

because “ [t]he issue is important not only to the parties of the MSA, but toJ. A 120 40 /18

- 11

-

the public at large because the sovereign power i n our government belongs
to the people. ” Id. at 346.
Here, in their “ brief in support of jurisdiction over this appeal, ”
appellants contend that they satisfy the second prong of the collateral order

doctrine because :

t he August 14 [o] rder implicates impo rtant due process interests that cannot go unprotected. At stake is whether [appellants] are required to arbitrate their construction defect claims in an arbitration forum that [appellants] did not agree to, or whether [appellants] are entitled to proceed in the Court of Common Pleas, which has jurisdiction over this matter. As set forth in [ Philip Morris ] , the right to have claims heard by the tribunal with jurisdiction is
a per se due process right, and due process rights are generally “ too important to be denied review. ” [ Philip Morris , 128 A.3d ] at 344. Accordingly, on this basis alone, the second prong of the collateral order doctrine is met.
Appellant ’ s brief in support of jurisdiction over this appeal, 11/2/17 at 19.
In their brief, appella nts r eiterate that position , but fail to explain how
their voluntary and mutual agreement to arbitrate their disputes with

Toll Brothers denies them due process and implicates interests deeply r ooted
in public policy that go beyond the litigation they initiated against

Toll Brothers . This is not a case where the trial court ordered arbitration

abs ent an agreement to arbitrate or in the absence of a rule of law requiring

arbitration. See Gilyard v. Redevelopment Auth. of Phila delphia

. , 780

A .2d 793 (Pa.Commw.Ct . 2001) (reversing order remanding appeal to
arbitration where trial court had no legal basis to transfer matter to a panel ofJ. A 120 40 /18

- 12

-

arbitrators for a hearing). Additionally, this case is not analogous to
Philip Morris wherein the order to compel multi

- state ar bitration, as opposed
to single

- state arbitration, implicated the Commonwealth ’ s sovereign rights
that ultimately belong to the citizens of the Commonwealth. Philip Morris , 128 A.3d at 346. In this case, appellants entered into an agreement of sale

for t he construction of a home that included a limited warranty. Both the
agreement of sale and the ancillary limited warranty contained arbitration
provisions that ap pellants do not wish to abide by. Therefore, the issue here
does not concern a right that im plicates interests deeply rooted in public policy
that go beyond appellants ’ litigation against Toll Brothers. The issue here
concerns appellants ’ unhappiness with the arbitration provisions in their
contractual agreements with Toll Brothers. Additionall y, the only deeply
rooted public policy involved in this case is the well

- established public policy

that Pennsylvania favors arbitration because it relieves parties of expensive
litigation and eases court congestion

. Cardinal v. Kindred Healthcare,

Inc. , 155 A.3d 46, 52 (Pa.Super. 2017).

I n an attempt to demonstrate that the right involved goes beyond the
particular litigation at hand, appellants claim that they are “ one family out of

many against whom Toll Brothers has attempted to subject to the

contrad ictory arbitration provisions in the [a ] greement of [ s ] ale and [l]imited
[w] arranty. ” ( Appellant ’ s brief at 4 (emphasis in original)

. ) This contention
is equally unavailing and fails to implicate interests deeply rooted in publicJ. A 120 40 /18

- 13

-

policy because it me rely raises the possibility that other individuals who may
have voluntarily entere d into home

- construction contracts with Toll Brothers

that c ontain arbitration provisions may not want to abide by tho se arbitration
provisions in the event that a dispute arises . Clearly, a ppellants fail to satisfy
the second prong of the collateral order doctrine.
Finally, even if we determined that appellants satisfied the second
prong, appellants concede that their claim will not be irreparably lost if
appellate review is po stponed until after arbitration , as follows:

If the August [o] rder is not immediately appealable, in the best case scenario, [a]ppellants

– who are senior citizens

– will be forced to expend substantial amounts of money and time over the course of years be fore obtaining appellate review of the Augus t [o] rder, only to start the litigation from beginning in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas.
Appellant ’ s brief at 7. Therefore, even assuming that appellants satisfied the
second prong of the collateral order doctrine, by their own admission,
appellants would not satisfy the third prong.
Appeal quashed.
Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/16/18