J-S16002-20
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
STACY BUCKLAW AND DIANE : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
BUCKLAW : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS, INC., TOLL BROS., :
INC., TOLL PA IV, L.P., TOLL PA GP : No. 3255 EDA 2018
CORP., AND ANDERSEN WINDOWS, :
INC. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: TOLL BROTHERS, INC., :
TOLL BROS., INC., TOLL PA IV, L.P., :
TOLL PA GP CORP :
Appeal from the Order Entered October 10, 2018
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 170600001
ANDREW L. PALSKY AND CHRISTINA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
M. PALSKY : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS, INC., AND TOLL PA :
IV, L.P., AND TOLL PA VI, L.P., AND : No. 423 EDA 2019
TOLL PA GP CORP., AND TOLL :
BROS., INC. AND ANDERSEN :
WINDOWS, INC. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: TOLL BROTHERS, INC., :
AND TOLL PA IV, L.P., AND TOLL PA :
VI, L.P., AND TOLL PA GP CORP., :
AND TOLL BROS., INC. :
Appeal from the Order Entered December 20, 2018
J-S16002-20
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 180703480
KALPESH SHAH AND SEJAL SHAH : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS INC., TOLL BROS., :
INC., TOLL PA IV,. L.P., AND TOLL PA :
GP CORP. (COLLECTIVELY, "TOLL : No. 620 EDA 2019
DEFENDANTS”) :
:
:
ANDERSEN WINDOWS, INC. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: TOLL BROTHERS INC., :
TOLL BROS., INC., TOLL PA IV,. L.P., :
AND TOLL PA GP CORP. :
(COLLECTIVELY, "TOLL :
DEFENDANTS”) :
:
:
:
Appeal from the Order Dated January 7, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): 180701952
ANDREW BONAS AND LAURA L. : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
BONAS : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TOL BROTHERS INC., TOLL BROS :
INC., TOLL PA IV L.P., TOLL PA VI : No. 1037 EDA 2019
L.P. AND TOLL PA GP CORP. AND :
ANDERSON WINDOWS :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 26, 2019
-2-
J-S16002-20
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 1807001954
BILLY ERNEST FLURRY AND MISTY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LAW FLURRY : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS, INC., ET AL. :
: No. 1066 EDA 2019
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): NO. 180701953
AJITH MANJAMATTATHIL AND : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
MARINA JOSEPH : PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS, INC.; TOLL BROS., :
INC.; TOLL PA II, L.P. AND TOLL GP : No. 1080 EDA 2019
CORP. AND ANDERSEN WINDOWS, :
INC. :
:
Appellant :
Appeal from the Order Entered March 26, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No 180701242
THOMAS LEVIEN : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
: PENNSYLVANIA
:
v. :
:
:
TOLL BROTHERS, INC., AND TOLL PA :
IV, L.P. AND TOLL PA VI, L.P. AND :
TOLL PA GP CORP., AND TOLL : No. 1426 EDA 2019
-3-
J-S16002-20
BROS., INC., AND ANDERSEN :
WINDOWS, INC. :
:
:
APPEAL OF: TOLL BROTHERS, INC., :
TOLL BROS., INC., TOLL PA IV, L.P., :
TOLL PA VI, L.P. AND TOLL PA GP :
CORP. (COLLECTIVELY, "TOLL :
DEFENDANTS”) :
:
:
:
Appeal from the Order Entered April 4, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
No(s): No. 180703136
BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
MEMORANDUM BY DUBOW, J.: FILED APRIL 21, 2020
In this consolidated appeal, Toll Brothers, Inc., Toll Bros., Inc., Toll PA,
II, L.P., Toll PA IV, L.P., Toll PA IV, and Toll PA, GP, Corp. (collectively,
“Appellant”), appeals from the trial court’s Orders denying Appellant’s
Petitions to Compel Arbitration. Appellant avers that the trial court erred in
finding that the mandatory arbitration clauses in the warranties provided by
Appellant to the original purchasers of the homes built and sold by Appellant
did not bind Appellees, all of whom were subsequent purchasers of those
homes. After careful review, we conclude that we are bound by this Court’s
recent holding in Porter v. Toll Brothers, Inc., 217 A.3d 337 (Pa. Super.
2019).1 We, therefore, affirm.
____________________________________________
1 On October 23, 2019, this Court denied Appellant’s Petition for Reargument
in Porter. Appellant’s Petitions for Allowance of Appeal, filed on November
22, 2019, remain pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
-4-
J-S16002-20
Briefly, Appellant is a builder and seller of residential homes. For the
benefit of “homeowners,” Appellant provides a 10-year limited warranty
(“Limited Warranty”) on all of its homes. The Limited Warranty defines
“homeowner” as “the first person to whom a home . . . is sold . . . and such
person’s successors . . . provided a Subsequent Home Buyer
Acknowledgement form (TB Form 1302) is signed by the subsequent
homeowner.” Limited Warranty at 12 (some capitalization removed and
emphasis added).
The Limited Warranty is transferrable from original purchasers of
Appellant’s homes to subsequent purchasers “provided that you or the new
owners notify the warranty program administrator in writing, utilizing
the Subsequent Home Buyer Acknowledgement and Assignment Form
[(TB Form 1302)] attached to this limited warranty after ownership is
transferred.” Id. at 9 (some capitalization removed and emphasis added).
TB Form 1302 provides for the transfer of any coverage remaining under
the Limited Warranty from the original purchaser of a home built and sold by
Appellant to a subsequent purchaser “[u]pon execution of this form[.]” Id.
at 37 (some capitalization removed and emphasis added). TB Form 1302
includes a mandatory arbitration clause. Id.
Appellees purchased their homes, built and originally sold by Appellant,
from the homes’ original owners between 2005 and 2016. It is undisputed
that no Appellee executed TB Form 1302.
-5-
J-S16002-20
Between September and November 2018, Appellees each filed
Complaints in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against
Appellant and Andersen Windows, Inc.,2 generally alleging construction
defects in their homes and raising, variously, counts of violations of the
Uniform Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law,3 negligent
representation, fraud, and negligence. Between September and December
2018, Appellant filed a Petition to Compel Arbitration in every case arguing:
(1) the home warranty transferred from the original purchasers to Appellees
and, thus, Appellees were third-party beneficiaries of the warranties; and (2)
all of Appellees’ rights against Appellant arise from the home warranty that
requires that disputes be resolved by arbitration.
One of Appellant’s Petitions was assigned to the Honorable Shelley
Robbins New, four were assigned to the Honorable John M. Younge, and two
were assigned to the Honorable Linda A. Carpenter (collectively, the “trial
court”). The trial court denied Appellant’s Petitions, generally concluding that
execution by the subsequent purchasers of the TB Form 1302 was a condition
precedent to transference of the Limited Warranty. Because no Appellee had
executed the TB Form 1302, the trial court concluded that Appellees had not
agreed to, and were, therefore, not bound by, the Limited Warranty or its
arbitration clause. See also Porter, 217 A.3d at 348-52.
____________________________________________
2Andersen Windows, Inc. supplied the windows installed in the homes built
by Appellant.
3 See 73 P.S §§ 201-1 to 201.93.
-6-
J-S16002-20
This timely appeal followed, in which Appellant raises the following two
issues:
1. Did the trial court err as a matter of law by denying [P]etitions
to [C]ompel [A]rbitration filed by [Appellant] when (a) the limited
warranty (on which [Appellees] rely to state their claims) contains
a valid arbitration agreement; (b) [Appellees] are bound by the
valid arbitration agreement that transferred to them with the
home they subsequently purchased from the original home buyer
either as third-party beneficiaries or by estoppel; and (c) the
unlimited arbitration agreement expressly states that [Appellees’]
claims are subject to arbitration?
2. Did the trial court err as a matter of law by denying a [P]etition
to [C]ompel [A]rbitration filed by [Appellant] when, contrary to
the trial court’s conclusions, (a) [Appellees] are bound by the
arbitration provision whether or not they signed it or any particular
form, whether or not the agreement identifies them by name, and
whether or not [Appellees] invoke third-party beneficiary status;
and (b) [Appellees’] claims fall within the scope of the arbitration
agreement regardless of the label they use or the relief they seek?
Appellant’s Brief at 11.
Appellant’s issues are identical to those decided by this Court in Porter.
See Porter, 217 A.3d at 346-47. In addition, in its appellate Brief, Appellant
concedes that “[t]hese cases are controlled by legal issues briefed, argued,
and recently decided by this Court in [Porter].4 Appellant’s Brief at 1.
Because Appellant raises the same issues and provides essentially the same
analysis as it did in Porter, we adopt the Porter analysis and conclude that
we are bound by its holding. We, thus, affirm the Orders denying Appellant’s
Petitions to Compel Arbitration.
____________________________________________
4The Porter plaintiffs are the subsequent purchasers of 30 homes built and
sold by Appellant.
-7-
J-S16002-20
Orders affirmed.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 04/21/2020
-8-