Court Opinion

ID: 9761592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:46:41.000208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:24.820961
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, J.,
Dissenting.
¶ 1 I conclude that the lower court properly denied Highmark’s petition to compel arbitration and the motion for reconsideration with regard thereto. Specifically, I conclude that no arbitrable dispute exists, and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 2 As the Majority correctly indicates, when one party to an agreement seeks to prevent another from proceeding to arbitration, this Court must determine whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties and, if so, whether the dispute involved is within the scope of the arbitration provision. Midomo Co. v. Presbyterian Housing Dev. Co., 739 A.2d 180 (Pa.Super.1999). Where it is clear that no dispute exists or the agreement involved is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers a dispute, arbitration is properly denied. Canter’s Pharmacy, Inc. v. Elizabeth Assoc., 396 Pa.Super. 505, 578 A.2d 1326 (1990). “Arbitration, by its very nature, presupposes the existence of a dispute and an ability to decide in favor of one party and against another. [Where this does not exist,] arbitration.. .would be futile.” Id. at 1330 (citation omitted).
¶ 3 In the case sub judice, Appellees do not dispute that an agreement to arbitrate exists. That is, the license agreement between Appellees and the Association indicates that all disputes between or among the Association, the plan, other plans and/or controlled affiliates must be submitted to arbitration. However, Appellees contend that Highmark is in no position to compel Appellees to sell Highmark an ownership interest in First Priority, and, therefore, there is no dispute to arbitrate. I agree with Appellees’ assertion.
¶ 4 Highmark has failed to point to any contract whereby Appellees mutually agreed to sell Highmark an ownership interest in First Priority, but failed to do so. While the parties discussed the possibility of Highmark buying an ownership interest, no definite agreement was ever reached. The concept is simple: Appellees cannot be coerced into selling Highmark an ownership interest in First Priority absent a binding contract directing such a sell. I note that the January 1, 1976 joint operating agreement does not directly limit Ap-pellees’ ability to operate First Priority and that Highmark exclusively operates Healthguard, an HMO providing services in central Pennsylvania.
¶ 5 Since Appellees cannot be compelled to sell Highmark an ownership interest in First Priority, there is no dispute to arbitrate. As such, I would affirm, and, therefore, I respectfully dissent.3

. I also note that the Majority concludes that waiver is a question for the arbitrator yet then makes a finding that the waiver claim is mer-itless. In any event, I would not reach the waiver issue as noted supra.