Opinion
J-A04031-17 No. 2664 EDA 2016
04-20-2017
ARIA HEALTH, v. R WORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC AND ALL PHASE ELECTRIC CO. APPEAL OF: R WORLD ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order Entered August 8, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Civil Division at No.: May Term, 2016 No. 160500973 BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., SOLANO, J., and PLATT, J. MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.:
Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, R World Energy Solutions, LLC, appeals from the trial court's August 8, 2016 order denying its preliminary objection in the nature of a motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully and correctly sets forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. ( See Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/16, at 1-3). Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
The trial court did not order Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. It filed an opinion on September 14, 2016. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925. --------
On appeal, Appellant raises the following issue for our review:
I. Whether the trial court committed an error of law and abused its discretion in failing to find that Appellee Aria Health's claims, in whole or in part, were subject to arbitration[?](Appellant's Brief, at 3) (unnecessary capitalization omitted).
We begin by noting that our review of a claim that the trial court improperly denied 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. As contract interpretation is a question of law, our review of the trial court's decision is de novo and our scope is plenary.Petersen v. Kindred Healthcare , Inc., — A.3d —, 2017 WL 429569, at *2 (Pa. Super. filed Feb. 1, 2017) (citations omitted).
After a thorough review of the record, the parties' briefs, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the trial court, we conclude that there is no merit to the issue Appellant has raised on appeal. The trial court opinion properly disposes of the question presented. ( See Trial Ct. Op., at 3-5) (finding that: (1) there is no arbitration clause in contract between Appellant and Appellee; (2) there is an arbitration clause contained in manufacturer's warranty provided by equipment manufacturer Gesper USA; (3) Gesper is not a party to this action; (4) arbitration agreement only covers disputes arising out of manufacturer's warranty; (5) Appellee does not allege in complaint that any Gesper equipment was defective; and (6) claims in instant matter do not implicate warranty because they only concern conduct and workmanship of Appellant in designing and installing equipment). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court's opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/20/2017
Image materials not available for display.