|
In Dodds v. Pulte Home Corp., Nos. 3262 EDA 2005, 3263 EDA 2005, 2006 WL 2788670 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 28, 2006), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that Dodds, a home buyer, could not avoid arbitration with Pulte merely by adding non-signatories or allegations of fraud to his lawsuit.
Dodds’ lawsuit arose from an alleged breach of a home construction contract that contained a broad arbitration clause providing for arbitration of “any controversy, claim or dispute.” Dodds claimed that he should not have to arbitrate because his fraudulent inducement claim was outside the scope of the arbitration clause. Also, Dodd asserted claims against Pulte’s parent corporation rather than the subsidiary entity that signed the arbitration agreement. Based on those circumstances, the trial court denied Pulte’s motion to compel arbitration.
The Court reversed the trial court and ordered that the claims be arbitrated. In reversing the trial court, the Court cited earlier case law establishing that a party can not avoid arbitration through creative pleading.
Similarly, the Court would not permit Dobbs to avoid arbitration by naming a non-signatory as a defendant. As in many jurisdictions, Pennsylvania holds that non-signatories who are third-party beneficiaries may invoke an arbitration clause if the contracting parties so intended. Since Pulte’s interests coincided with those of its subsidiary, the Court blocked Dobbs’ attempt to circumvent the agreement by naming a non-signatory.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|