Waters v. Express Container Servs. of Pittsburgh, 2022 Pa. Super. LEXIS 432 (October 18, 2022) (Colins, J.) Appellant Miller Transporters, Inc. (Miller) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) overruling its preliminary objection seeking arbitration of claims brought against it by James Eddie Waters (Plaintiff). For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand with instructions to order arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against Miller. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was working on an assignment to transport the tanker-trailer for Miller under an Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement that Plaintiff and Miller entered into. There is no dispute here that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate. Plaintiff admits that he and Miller entered into the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement and that the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement contains provisions that require that any claim that “arises out of or relates to this Agreement or operations pursuant to this Agreement … shall at the request of any party, made before or after institution of legal proceedings, be determined by binding arbitration.” It is clear, however, from both the provisions of the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement and Plaintiff’s allegations and admissions in this action that Plaintiff’s personal injury claims against Miller arise out “operations pursuant to” the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement. The Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement provides for Plaintiff to use his truck tractor to transport trailers. Plaintiff admits that he was working on a job for Miller at the time of the accident and that Miller and the customer required him to perform the inspection of the tanker-trailer. Moreover, Plaintiff bases his claims against Miller on breach of its duties to him as a contractor working for Miller and admits that his relationship with Miller was governed by the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement. Nothing in the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement indicates that the parties intended to limit the arbitration clause to contract claims. The statutes of limitations referenced in the arbitration clause are not solely contract statutes of limitations. Because the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement requires that the parties arbitrate any “controversy or claim [that] arises out of or relates to this Agreement or operations pursuant to this Agreement” and Plaintiff alleges that his personal injury claims against Miller arose out work that he was performing under the Equipment Lease and Transportation Agreement, Plaintiff’s claims against Miller in this action are within the scope of the arbitration clause and must be resolved by arbitration. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order overruling Miller’s preliminary objection that sought arbitration and remand this matter to the trial court with instructions to order arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims against Miller.
ARBITRATION-PERSONAL INJURY
October 24th, 2022 by Rieders Travis in Arbitration