J-A23031-20

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

HATTIE D. LOVETT, AS 

ADMINISTRATRIX FOR THE ESTATE 

OF: MCKINLEY C. LOVETT, 

DECEASED

v.

HCR MANORCARE, INC., 

WALLINGFORD NURSING AND 

REHABILITATION CENTERWALLINGFORD, PA, LLC, D/B/A 

MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICESWALLINGFORD, HCR MANORCARE, 

LLC MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, 

INC. A/K/A MANORCARE HEALTH 

SERVICES, LLC, MANOR CARE, INC., 

HCR IV HEALTHCARE, LLC., HCR III 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR II 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCRMC 

OPERATIONS, LLC, HCR MANORCARE 

OPERATIONS II, LLC, HEARTLAND 

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, HCR 

MANORCARE HEARTLAND, LLC, HCR 

MANOR CARE SERVICES, LLC, 

CROZER-KEYSTONE HEALTH 

SYSTEM, AND PROSPECT CCMC, LLC 

D/B/A CROZER-CHESTER MEDICAL 

CENTER

APPEAL OF: HCR MANORCARE, INC., 

WALLINGFORD NURSING AND 

REHABILITATION CENTERWALLINGFORD, PA, LLC, D/B/A 

MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICESWALLINGFORD, HCR MANORCARE, 

LLC MANORCARE HEALTH SERVICES, 

INC. A/K/A MANORCARE HEALTH 

SERVICES, LLC, MANOR CARE, INC., 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 564 EDA 2020
J-A23031-20

- 2 -

HCR IV HEALTHCARE, LLC., HCR III 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR II 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCR 

HEALTHCARE, LLC, HCRMC 

OPERATIONS, LLC, HCR MANORCARE 

OPERATIONS II, LLC, HEARTLAND 

EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, LLC, HCR 

MANORCARE HEARTLAND, LLC, HCR 

MANOR CARE SERVICES, LLC, 

CROZER-KEYSTONE HEALTH SYSTEM 

AND PROSPECT CCMC, LLC D/B/A/ 

CROZER-CHESTER MEDICAL 

CENTER,

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Appeal from the Order Entered January 22, 2020

In the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County Civil Division at 

No(s): No. CV-2018-000407

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., NICHOLS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.*

MEMORANDUM BY PELLEGRINI, J.: FILED NOVEMBER 18, 2020

ManorCare1 appeals from the trial court order overruling its Preliminary 

Objections to the Complaint of Hattie D. Lovett, as Administratrix for the 

Estate of McKinley C. Lovett, Deceased (the Estate). The Preliminary 

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

1 “ManorCare” is comprised of fourteen entities: HCR ManorCare, Inc.; 

Wallingford Nursing and Rehabilitation Center-Wallingford PA, LLC d/b/a 

ManorCare Health Services-Walllingford; HCR ManorCare, LLC; ManorCare 

Health Services, Inc. a/k/a ManorCare Health Services, LLC; Manor Care, Inc.; 

HCR IV Healthcare, LLC; HCR III Healthcare, LLC; HCR II Healthcare, LLC; 

HCR Healthcare, LLC; HCRMC Operations, LLC; HCR ManorCare Operations II, 

LLC; Heartland Employment Services, LLC; HCR ManorCare Heartland, LLC; 

and HCR Manor Care Services, LLC.
J-A23031-20

- 3 -

Objections sought to compel arbitration2 pursuant to the Voluntary Arbitration 

Agreement (Agreement) signed by Hattie D. Lovett on behalf of her husband, 

McKinley C. Lovett. ManorCare argues that the trial court erred when it

concluded that Hattie D. Lovett lacked authority to execute the Agreement on 

her late husband’s behalf, and on this basis, declined to enforce its terms.

I.

We take the following factual background and procedural history from 

our review of the certified record and the trial court’s April 7, 2020 opinion.

On February 8, 2016, eighty-two-year-old McKinley C. Lovett presented 

to Prospect CCMC, LLC. He had sustained a fall and was suffering from 

pressure ulcers, skin impairments and malnutrition. He was transferred to

ManorCare on February 13, 2016. He resided there for twenty-one days until 

March 4, 2016, when he was discharged to the home he shared with his wife, 

Hattie D. Lovett, per their wishes. On March 4, 2016, the day of discharge, 

Hattie D. Lovett signed the admissions paperwork,3including the Agreement,

____________________________________________

2 This appeal is properly before this Court as an interlocutory appeal as of 

right. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 7320(a)(1); Pa.R.A.P. 311(a)(8); Gaffer Ins. Co., 

Ltd. v. Discover Reinsurance Co., 936 A.2d 1109, 1110 n.2 (Pa. Super. 

2007).

3 The twenty-seven-page admissions packet contained over ten (10) separate 

documents requiring a signature. The forms included an admissions 

agreement between Patient and Center, a receipt of notice of information 

practices, a resident trust fund authorization, a skilled nursing facility denial 

letter, a Medicare secondary payee questionnaire, a ManorCare patient 

supplement, a transportation notice, supplemental primary care doctor notice, 
J-A23031-20

- 4 -

on her husband’s behalf. The Agreement provided, in pertinent part, that 

signing it was voluntary and not required for admission, that the resident was 

waiving his right to a jury trial, and all disputes were to be arbitrated. (See

Voluntary Arbitration Agreement, 3/04/16, at 1, 3).

Mr. Lovett died on May 23, 2016. On January 17, 2018, the Estate filed 

a Complaint against ManorCare.4 The Complaint alleged negligence, corporate 

negligence/liability and custodial neglect for failure to properly examine, treat 

and care for McKinley C. Lovett during his admission at ManorCare from 

February 13, 2016, through March 4, 2016. ManorCare filed Preliminary 

Objections on February 9, 2018, which moved, in pertinent part, to compel 

enforcement of the Agreement. (See Preliminary Objections, 2/09/18, at 7-

9). On May 6, 2019, the trial court granted the parties leave to conduct 

discovery related to the execution of the Agreement and to file supplemental 

memoranda of law.

As part of this discovery, the parties conducted depositions of Hattie D. 

Lovett and Nicole Zimmerman, a ManorCare Business Development Specialist.

____________________________________________

smoking and safety policy, a listing of the ManorCare administrative team, 

room rate fee schedule and Voluntary Arbitration Agreement. (See Trial Court 

Opinion, 4/07/20, at 4-5).

4 Prospect CCMC, LLC d/b/a Crozer-Chester Medical Center and CKHS, Inc. 

a/k/a Crozer-Keystone Health System, were also defendants in the suit. 

However, they were not parties to the Preliminary Objections and are not 

participants in this appeal.
J-A23031-20

- 5 -

A.

Nicole Zimmerman, the ManorCare admissions director, was deposed on 

January 14, 2019. (See N.T. Nicole Zimmerman Deposition, 1/14/19, at 12). 

Ms. Zimmerman testified that she signed Mr. Lovett in on the date of his 

admission, February 13, 2016. (See id. at 11). She explained that the 

facility’s policy is that admission paperwork be completed within twenty-four 

to forty-eight hours after a patient is admitted unless the resident refuses to 

sign or the responsible party is unavailable. (See id. at 47-49). The 

admissions coordinator, Lisa Leggett, would typically get the admissions 

documents signed by the patient or would attempt to locate the responsible 

party the patient designated, although sometimes Ms. Zimmerman did it. 

(See id. at 53-54, 70). Ms. Zimmerman was not sure whether she or Ms. 

Leggett met with Mr. Lovett for the initial attempt to get the admissions 

paperwork signed, but she testified that both women would have explained, 

whether it be to Mr. Lovett or any other admitting patient:

You are going to get some admission paperwork signed, 

permission for ... you to be here, permission for us to take care of 

you, bill your insurance, there’s some additional addendums, 

there’s the arbitration agreement, transportation, and we go 

through your insurance.

(Id. at 122-23); (see id. at 120). Mr. Lovett would not have been specifically 

told that, by voluntarily signing the Agreement, he would be waiving his right 

to a jury trial. (See id. at 123, 136-37). If a resident refused to sign or 

preferred to have someone else sign on his behalf, Ms. Leggett would 
J-A23031-20

- 6 -

document the date and time of this information in the individual’s file. (See 

id. at 50, 113-15).

Ms. Zimmerman could not remember whether she or Ms. Leggett had 

met with Mr. Lovett when he told one of them that they would have to speak 

to his wife about signing the admission documents. (See id. at 111-12, 120). 

At the time of her deposition, Ms. Zimmerman could not remember seeing file 

notations about Mr. Lovett’s refusal to sign, his designation of his wife as his 

agent or Ms. Leggett’s attempts to reach Ms. Lovett. (See id. at 112-14). In 

fact, despite the Estate’s requests, ManorCare did not produce any such 

documentation relative to Mr. Lovett, so no such evidence is in the record. 

(See Supplemental Arbitration-Related Request for Production of Documents, 

1/15/19, at 1; Follow-Up Correspondence Requesting Response, 7/25/19, at 

1).

On the morning of March 4, 2016, the day of his discharge, when Ms. 

Zimmerman went to Mr. Lovett’s room for the first time that day, Mr. Lovett 

was sitting up in bed, alone in his room. (See Zimmerman Deposition, at 

120). She did not ask Mr. Lovett to sign the documents because it was clear 

that his wife was to do so. Although she repeatedly testified that Mr. Lovett 

said his wife was to sign all admission documents, she also testified that Ms.

Lovett was to sign because, although Mr. Lovett did not have dementia, he

was older than his wife was and had multiple medical issues. (See id. at 120, 

140-41).
J-A23031-20

- 7 -

Ms. Zimmerman returned to Mr. Lovett’s room later, between 11:00 

A.M. and 1:30 P.M., and he was still in the bed and his wife was standing to 

the side of him. (See id. at 124). Ms. Lovett would have been expecting the 

documents because Ms. Leggett had arranged for her to be there to sign them. 

(See id. at 129). Ms. Zimmerman introduced herself to Ms. Lovett and told 

her she was there to get the admissions paperwork signed. (See id. at 121, 

124). She said that she did not ask for Mr. Lovett’s consent at that time and 

he did not give it. (See id. at 122, 127-28). She was not aware of any power 

of attorney giving Ms. Lovett legal authority to sign the documents. (See id.

at 125).

She testified that she pulled up a bedside table to go through the

paperwork with Ms. Lovett and that the entire process took approximately ten 

to fifteen minutes. (See id. at 121, 125, 132). Ms. Zimmerman pointed out 

to Ms. Lovett where the documents were marked with an “X” for her to sign 

as the responsible party. (See id. at 132-34). When asked what she told Ms.

Lovett about the Agreement, Ms. Zimmerman replied:

What I tell everybody. It’s voluntary. You have the right to 

change your mind within 30 days. You just have to do so in 

writing, and we will attach it to the arbitration agreement.

It is a faster process in the event of a lawsuit. You would 

be able to bring an attorney. The attorneys would pick three 

arbitrators. The lead arbitrator is a retired Pennsylvania judge. 

The other two arbitrators have to have at least ten years practicing 

law experience. They will hear both sides. They will come up with 

a determination in the case.

(Id. at 135).
J-A23031-20

- 8 -

She did not confirm with Mr. Lovett that his wife had the right to sign 

the Agreement and waive his right to a jury trial or explain to Ms. Lovett “she 

was waiving his right to a jury trial by signing it.” (Id. at 138); (see id. at 

136). Ms. Lovett did not ask any questions about the Agreement or any of 

the other documents. (See id. at 129, 136). Ms. Zimmerman testified that 

she could not remember if Mr. Lovett was awake and facing toward them at 

the time. (See id. at 126, 128-29, 138).

B.

Hattie D. Lovett was deposed on January 29, 2019. At her deposition, 

she testified that she and McKinley C. Lovett had been married for thirty-four 

years, during which time Mr. Lovett usually handled the household bills and 

wrote the checks for their rent. (See N.T. Hattie D. Lovett Deposition, 

1/29/19, at 10, 18). Ms. Lovett produced a Wachovia Bank Durable Power of 

Attorney executed by her husband in her favor dated January 19, 2008. The 

document authorized certain conduct by her on behalf of her husband 

involving banking matters at Wachovia Bank only. The document did not 

authorize any other legal action by Hattie D. Lovett on behalf of her husband 

for any purpose. (See id. at 19) (testifying that the Power of Attorney 

authorized Ms. Lovett to “cash checks, withdraw[] [and] deposit.”); (see also

Wachovia Bank, N.A. Durable Power of Attorney, 1/19/08, at 1). She started 

paying rent and other household bills after Mr. Lovett got sick. (See N.T. 

Lovett Deposition, at 18).
J-A23031-20

- 9 -

Regarding her husband’s ManorCare stay, Ms. Lovett testified that she 

visited him every day for several hours and that, although the staff would 

speak with her, she was never asked to sign Mr. Lovett’s paperwork until 

March 4, 2016, the day of his discharge. (See id. at 42-44, 46-47). Contrary 

to Ms. Zimmerman’s testimony, Ms. Lovett explained that on that day, Mr. 

Lovett was in a wheelchair on one side of the bed waiting to go home, she 

was sitting in a chair on the other side of the bed, and his sister was in the 

room, when a woman came into the room and said, “These are discharge 

papers. She had her hand where [Ms. Lovett] was to sign, sign and sign and 

that’s what [she] did.” (Id. at 52); (see id. at 17, 30, 31, 33, 53). The 

woman did not show the papers to Mr. Lovett or ask him to sign them, and

Mr. Lovett never asked Ms. Lovett to sign the paperwork on his behalf. (See 

id. at 24-25, 33, 50-51, 53). The woman had the pages ready where she was 

to sign, so she did so, but she did not read the paperwork packet. (See id.

at 34-35, 37, 39). She “thought [she] was doing the right thing,” because 

she felt that she had to sign the documents before Mr. Lovett could leave.

(Id. at 53); (see also 52-54). According to Ms. Lovett, the woman did not 

explain that the paperwork contained a Voluntary Arbitration Agreement or 

mention anything about a jury trial or giving up the right to a jury trial. (See 

id. at 53-54). She did not advise her that signing the Agreement was 

voluntary or ask if Ms. Lovett had a power of attorney for her husband. (See 

id. at 51, 54).
J-A23031-20

- 10 -

C.

Lovett and ManorCare each filed a supplemental memorandum of law 

on September 4, 2019, and September 5, 2019, respectively. After its 

thorough review of the memoranda and exhibits attached thereto, the court 

overruled ManorCare’s request that it enforce the Agreement, finding that Ms.

Lovett lacked authority to sign it where “the record fails to establish that the 

late McKinley C. Lovett was requested to sign any of the admission papers, 

that the Voluntary Arbitration Agreement was presented or discussed with Mr. 

Lovett or that he was aware of the execution of the documents at discharge.” 

(Id. at 6). ManorCare timely appealed5 and it and the court have complied 

with Rule 1925. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925.

II.

In this appeal, ManorCare argues that “the trial court erred in refusing 

to enforce the agreement requiring arbitration of disputes by finding that 

____________________________________________

5 “Our [standard of] review of a claim that the trial court improperly denied 

the appellant’s preliminary objections in the nature of a petition to compel 

arbitration is limited to determining whether the trial court’s findings are 

supported by substantial evidence and whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying the petition.” Wisler v. Manor Care of Lancaster PA, 

LLC, 124 A.3d 317, 322 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 128 A.3d 222 (Pa. 

2015) (citation omitted). “We employ a two-part test to determine whether 

the trial court should have compelled arbitration: 1) whether a valid 

agreement to arbitrate exists, and 2) whether the dispute is within the scope 

of the agreement.” Washburn v. Northern Health Facilities, Inc., 121 

A.3d 1008, 1012 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal denied, 167 A.3d 702 (Pa. 2017) 

(citations omitted). “Our scope of review is plenary.” Wisler, supra at 322 

(citation omitted).
J-A23031-20

- 11 -

Hattie Lovett did not have the requisite authority to execute the agreement 

on behalf of her husband, McKinley Lovett[.]” (ManorCare’s Brief, at 3). It 

argues that the trial court failed to acknowledge that both the Federal 

Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-307, and Pennsylvania precedent “reflect 

a liberal policy favoring arbitration of disputes.” (Id. at 12-16). It also argues 

that Ms. Lovett had the express and apparent authority to sign the Agreement 

on Mr. Lovett’s behalf and she is estopped from denying agency. (See id. at 

17-25).

A.

As a preliminary matter, we address ManorCare’s general argument that 

the trial court’s opinion did not recognize and apply the liberal policy favoring 

arbitration established by the FAA. As noted by this Court in MacPherson v. 

Magee Memorial Hosp. for Convalescence, 128 A.3d 1209 (Pa. Super. 

2015), appeal denied, 161 A.3d 789 (Pa. 2016), cert. dismissed, 138 S.Ct. 

354 (2017):

Pennsylvania has a well-established public policy that favors 

arbitration, and this policy aligns with the federal approach 

expressed in the FAA. The fundamental purpose of the FAA is to 

relieve the parties from expensive litigation and to help ease the 

current congestion of court calendars. Its passage was a 

congressional declaration of a liberal federal policy favoring 

arbitration agreements.

MacPherson, supra at 1219 (citation and brackets omitted). “This policy 

applies equally to all arbitration agreements, including those involving nursing 

homes.” Id. (citations omitted). The FAA puts arbitration “agreements upon 
J-A23031-20

- 12 -

the same footing as other contracts.” Salley v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 

925 A.2d 115, 119 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted). Thus, “when addressing the 

specific issue of whether there is a valid agreement to arbitrate, courts 

generally should apply ordinary state-law principles that govern the formation 

of contracts, but in doing so, must give due regard to the federal policy 

favoring arbitration.” MacPherson, supra at 1219 (citation omitted). 

However, while there is a policy that favors arbitration, whether a person has 

the authority under agency principles to bind the third party and the scope of 

that authority affects the validity of the contract. In this case, the issue is 

whether the trial court erred when it concluded that Ms. Lovett lacked the 

authority to sign the Agreement.

B.

ManorCare maintains that the trial court erred when it found that Ms.

Lovett lacked either the actual or apparent authority or authority by estoppel.

Even if a party did not sign an arbitration agreement, he may be 

compelled to arbitrate under such agreement, based on common law

principles of agency and contract. See Wisler, supra at 323. The party 

asserting agency has the burden of establishing an agency relationship. See 

id. The agency relationship is one in which “the principal manifests assent 

that another person (the agent) will act on the principal’s behalf subject to the 

principal’s control, and the agent agrees to do so.” Id. (citation omitted).
J-A23031-20

- 13 -

“The basic elements of agency are the manifestation by the principal 

that the agent shall act for him, the agent’s acceptance of the undertaking 

and the understanding of the parties that the principal is to be in control of 

the undertaking.” Walton v. Johnson, 66 A.3d 782, 787 (Pa. Super. 2013) 

(citation omitted). “An agency relationship may be created by any of the 

following: (1) express authority, (2) implied authority, (3) apparent authority, 

and/or (4) authority by estoppel.” Washburn, supra at 1012 (citations 

omitted).

1.

ManorCare’s first argument is that Ms. Lovett had Mr. Lovett’s actual or 

express authority to sign the Agreement as part of the admissions paperwork. 

(See ManorCare’s Brief, at 17-18).

“Express authority exists where the principal deliberately and 

specifically grants authority to the agent as to certain matters. ... A valid, 

durable power of attorney constitutes a grant of express authority per its 

terms.” Wisler, supra at 323-24 (citations omitted). “A party who deals 

with an agent must take notice of the nature and extent of the authority 

conferred. Parties are bound at their own peril to notice limitations upon the 

grant of authority before them[.]” Id. at 324 (citation omitted). “The 

authority to consent to medical treatment and care on behalf of a principal 

does not necessarily entail the authority to consent to arbitration,” particularly 
J-A23031-20

- 14 -

when the arbitration agreement is not a condition of admission. Id. (citation 

omitted).

Here, we first note that it is undisputed that Ms. Lovett was not her 

husband’s legal guardian, and although Mr. Lovett provided his wife with a 

Wachovia Bank Limited Power of Attorney, it did not grant her authority 

outside of handling banking matters. Although ManorCare argues that 

granting Ms. Lovett with the Wachovia Bank Power of Attorney establishes a 

course of conduct, we find such argument unavailing for express/actual

authority, which requires that Mr. Lovett “deliberately and specifically 

grant[ed] authority” to Ms. Lovett to sign the Agreement. Id. at 323 (citation 

omitted).

Further, despite ManorCare’s argument that “[t]he record is undisputed 

that during the three-week admission, Mr. Lovett instructed admissions staff

to go over the admissions paperwork with his wife[,]” there is no actual 

evidence of same. (ManorCare’s Brief, at 17). Although Ms. Zimmerman 

testified that Mr. Lovett said that Ms. Lovett had the authority to sign all 

paperwork on his behalf, and that she would expect this to be documented, 

ManorCare provided no evidence of such actual grant of authority, in spite of 

numerous requests for the documentation and it being ManorCare policy that 

any such actual grant of authority would be noted in writing. Ms. Zimmerman 

could not remember specifically when Mr. Lovett said that he was granting his 
J-A23031-20

- 15 -

wife with this authority and whether it was told to her or her colleague, Ms. 

Leggett.

More importantly, there was no evidence that Mr. Lovett granted his 

wife with the specific authority to sign the Agreement and waive his 

constitutional right to a jury trial. Ms. Zimmerman explained that either she 

or her colleague would have mentioned the Agreement to him but would not 

have said anything “about waiving the right to a jury trial” or anything of that 

nature. (Zimmerman Deposition, at 123, 136-37). At the time of signing, 

Ms. Zimmerman did not question whether Ms. Lovett had a power of attorney 

or was the legal guardian for Mr. Lovett or ask Mr. Lovett, who was in the 

room at the time, if his wife had the authority to sign the Agreement. Ms. 

Zimmerman was uncertain if he was even awake or facing toward them at the 

time, did not explain to Ms. Lovett “she was waiving his right to a jury trial by 

signing” or confirm with Mr. Lovett that his wife had the authority to sign this 

legal document. (Id. at 138). Ms. Lovett testified that her husband did not 

tell her to sign any of the admissions documents.

Based on the foregoing, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial 

court’s finding that ManorCare failed to prove that Mr. Lovett granted Ms.

Lovett with the actual authority to bind him to the Agreement. See Wisler, 

supra at 324 (even if son had power of attorney granting him ability to sign 

admissions paperwork on father’s behalf, where it did not indicate that it also 

allowed him to waive litigation rights in favor of arbitration, son lacked actual 
J-A23031-20

- 16 -

authority to sign arbitration agreement); see Washburn, supra at 1014-15 

(concluding wife was not husband’s agent, despite her having previously 

signed and filed joint tax returns and healthcare forms on her husband’s 

behalf, because there was no evidence that husband had authorized her to 

sign arbitration agreement specifically).

2.

Next, we turn to ManorCare’s claim that Ms. Lovett had the apparent 

authority to sign the Agreement on her husband’s behalf. (See ManorCare’s 

Brief, at 18-20).

Apparent agency exists where the principal, by word or conduct, 

causes people with whom the alleged agent deals to believe that 

the principal has granted the agent authority to act. An agent 

cannot simply[,] by his own words, invest himself with apparent 

authority. Such authority emanates from the action of the 

principal and not the agent.

Wisler, supra at 324 (citations omitted).

ManorCare argues that “Mr. Lovett’s insistence to Ms. Zimmerman that 

[his wife] sign the admission documents, including the Arbitration Agreement, 

on his behalf, paired with him looking on as she reviewed them with Ms. 

Zimmerman is clear and un-contradicted evidence of apparent authority.”

(ManorCare’s Brief, at 18). It also maintains that the Wachovia Bank Power 

of Attorney “provide[s] evidence that Mr. Lovett was increasingly willing to 

authorize her to manage his affairs,” and she took on additional tasks such as 

paying bills and their apartment’s lease. (Id. at 19).
J-A23031-20

- 17 -

We first observe that we addressed ManorCare’s claim that Mr. Lovett 

expressly told Ms. Zimmerman that he wanted his wife to sign the admissions

paperwork, including the Agreement, on his behalf when we reviewed his 

claim of actual agency, and we concluded the evidence failed to establish that

he expressly intended to grant such authority. (See Memorandum, supra at 

14-15). Moreover, we observe that this was Mr. Lovett’s first admission to 

ManorCare. Thus, he did not have a prior course of conduct of granting his 

wife with the authority to sign arbitration agreements and to waive his right 

to a jury trial in previous admissions. Hence, we conclude that ManorCare has 

failed to establish Mr. Lovett’s alleged course of conduct on this basis.

Furthermore, ManorCare’s claim that Mr. Lovett’s conduct in “look[ing] 

on as [his wife] reviewed [the Arbitration Agreement] with Ms. Zimmerman,” 

thus establishing her apparent authority, is belied by the record. Indeed, Ms. 

Zimmerman was unsure if Mr. Lovett was even awake as she went over the 

admissions paperwork, including the Agreement, with his wife. Therefore, 

merely because Mr. Lovett was in the room when the Agreement was signed 

does not establish Ms. Lovett with the apparent authority to sign it.

Finally, we do not find persuasive ManorCare’s suggestion that the 

Wachovia Bank Power of Attorney established Mr. Lovett’s course of conduct 

in granting Ms. Lovett more authority to make decisions on his behalf and,

therefore, provided her with apparent authority to sign the Agreement. 

Instead, it demonstrates that Mr. Lovett was aware that he could grant his 
J-A23031-20

- 18 -

wife with a power of attorney and he chose to grant her with the limited 

authority to make banking decisions, yet he chose not to grant her a power of 

attorney to sign legal documents such as the Agreement.

Based on the foregoing, it is not even clear that Mr. Lovett was awake

or aware that Ms. Lovett was signing the Agreement and voluntarily waiving 

his right to a jury trial. Moreover, he exhibited no course of conduct in 

granting Ms. Lovett with legal authority to sign an arbitration agreement on 

his behalf where this was his first admission to ManorCare and he had elected

not to grant her with a legal power of attorney. Therefore, there was nothing 

in his actions that would lead a person to believe that he granted Ms. Lovett 

the apparent authority to sign the Agreement on his behalf. See Wisler, 

supra at 324 (affirming trial court conclusion that son, who had signed 

paperwork for two different nursing home admissions, paid father’s bills and 

handled his banking, lacked apparent authority to sign arbitration agreement 

where no one confirmed with father that son’s authority extended to signing 

agreement); Washburn, supra at 1015 (wife lacked apparent authority to 

sign arbitration agreement in part because no course of conduct in doing so 

where no prior dealings with facility). Accordingly, the trial court properly 

found that ManorCare failed to establish apparent authority.

C.

In its final agency argument, ManorCare maintains, “Ms. Lovett is 

estopped from denying that she had the authority to sign the Arbitration 
J-A23031-20

- 19 -

Agreement on her husband’s behalf.” (ManorCare’s Brief, at 20). ManorCare 

argues that Mr. Lovett was present when Ms. Zimmerman and Ms. Lovett were 

going through the admissions paperwork and he did nothing to suggest his 

wife lacked authority. (See id. at 21). Ms. Lovett is a competent adult who 

signed the Agreement of her own volition. Her failure to read it prior to signing 

does not undermine the validity and enforceability of the contract. (See id.

at 24-25).

The Estate responds, “there is no evidence that Mr. Lovett knew or 

should have known that his wife executed an arbitration agreement. As such, 

Mr. Lovett could not possibly be negligent for failing to repudiate his wife’s 

actions.” (Estate’s Brief, at 34) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Agency by estoppel ... is essentially a determination of 

agency by after-the-fact actions by the principal. Agency by 

estoppel contains the elements that the principal intentionally or 

carelessly caused a third party to believe an agency relationship 

existed, or knowing that the third party held such a belief, did not 

take reasonable steps to clarify the facts. Additionally, there must 

be justifiable reliance by the third party.

Walton, supra at 788 (citations omitted).

We find Washburn, supra, instructive. In Washburn, Mr. Washburn 

had dementia and lacked the capacity to execute the arbitration agreement. 

Ms. Washburn signed the admissions paperwork, including the arbitration 

agreement as the designated legal representative for healthcare and financial 

decisions, but she did not have her husband’s power of attorney and she had 

not been appointed his guardian, which she communicated to the nursing 
J-A23031-20

- 20 -

facility’s employee. The arbitration agreement was one in a series of 

documents presented to Ms. Washburn; she believed she was signing 

documents authorizing the hospital to treat her husband. In the past, Ms.

Washburn had electronically signed their joint tax returns on her decedent 

husband’s behalf. She also completed his application for Medicaid benefits 

and a “Do not Resuscitate” form. See Washburn, supra at 1010-11.

After concluding that the defendant facility had failed to prove actual 

and apparent agency, the Washburn Court found that agency by estoppel did 

not apply either because:

decedent [had not] availed himself of the [arbitration] agreement 

or received any benefit under that agreement. The [] agreement 

was separate from the admission agreement and admission was 

not conditioned upon agreeing to arbitrate. Thus, the agreement 

to arbitrate was not part of the contractual quid pro quo for

admission to the facility and its attendant benefits.

Washburn, supra at 1015-16.

Similarly, here, the Agreement expressly stated that admission was not 

contingent on the Agreement being signed, so Mr. Lovett realized no benefit 

from his wife signing it.6 Moreover, there is no evidence that he ratified the 

Agreement after Ms. Lovett signed. Therefore, we conclude that ManorCare 

has failed to establish agency by estoppel.

____________________________________________

6 We briefly note that even if the Agreement was not separate from the 

admission agreement and admission was conditioned upon agreeing to 

arbitrate, it is unlikely that Mr. Lovett could have realized any benefit by Ms.

Lovett signing it where she did so at the time of his discharge.
J-A23031-20

- 21 -

Accordingly, putting the Agreement “upon the same footing as other 

contracts[,]” and “apply[ing] ordinary state-law principles that govern [their]

formation,” while giving “due regard to the federal policy favoring arbitration,” 

we conclude that the trial court properly denied ManorCare’s motion to enforce 

the Agreement because no valid contract was formed where Ms. Lovett lacked 

the authority to sign it on her husband’s behalf.7 MacPherson, supra at 

1219 (citation omitted); Salley, supra at 119 (citation omitted); see Wisler, 

supra at 322.

8

Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

7 We do not find ManorCare’s reliance on Del Ciotta v. Pennsylvania Hosp. 

of the Univ. of Penn Health System, 177 A.3d 335 (Pa. Super. 2017), to 

be legally persuasive because it is factually distinguishable. (See ManorCare’s 

Reply Brief, at 6-7). In Del Ciotta, this Court affirmed a trial court’s order 

enforcing an arbitration agreement based on the signatory son’s verified 

(subject to criminal penalties) pleading that admitted he was authorized to 

sign his father’s admissions paperwork as his personal representative due to

his father’s incapacity, as well as other documentary evidence supporting the 

authority. See Del Ciotta, supra at 355. Here, there is no such verified 

statement or other documentary evidence establishing that Mr. Lovett gave 

Ms. Lovett the authority to sign the Agreement.

8 Because we conclude that no valid contract was formed and the trial court 

did not address these arguments, we decline to reach the Estate’s alternate 

claims about material representation, the Agreement’s scope and bifurcation. 

(See Estate’s Brief, at 35-45).
J-A23031-20

- 22 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 11/18/2020