Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc.

300 A.3d 430

Shannon CHILUTTI and Keith Chilutti, H/W Appellants v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Gegen LLC, Raiser-PA, LLC, Raiser, LLC, Sarah's Car Care, Inc., Mohammed Basheir

No. 1023 EDA 2021

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued May 3, 2023

Filed July 19, 2023

Joseph L. Messa Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Thomas N. Sweeney, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Michael L. Kichline, Philadelphia, for appellee.

BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., LAZARUS, J., OLSON, J., STABILE, J., DUBOW, J., NICHOLS, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., McCAFFERY, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

OPINION BY McCAFFERY, J.:

This appeal arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 20, 2019. On that date, Shannon Chilutti, who is wheelchair bound, was injured while riding in a car provided by the transportation service company, Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber), on the way home from a medical appointment in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. ¹ Central to this case is whether a party should be deprived of their constitutional right to a jury trial when they purportedly enter into an arbitration agreement via a set of hyperlinked "terms and conditions" on a website or smartphone application that they never clicked on, viewed, or read.

In scrutinizing this question, we emphasize at the outset that this Commonwealth guarantees its citizens a constitutional right to a jury trial: " Trial by jury shall be as heretofore, and the right thereof remain inviolate ." PA CONST. art. 1, § 6 (emphasis added). ² "Inviolate" is defined as "[f]ree from violation; not broken, infringed, or impaired." Black's Law Dictionary, "INVIOLATE" (11th ed. 2019). Since 1847, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has safeguarded this constitutional protection by recognizing that a victim who has suffered personal injuries is guaranteed the right to a jury trial:

The bill of rights, which is forever excluded from legislative invasion, declares that the trial by jury shall remain as heretofore, and the right thereof be inviolate; that all courts shall be open, and that every man shall have redress by the due course of law, and that no man can be deprived of his right, except by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.

Brown v. Hummel , 6 Pa. 86, 90 (1847).

As will be discussed below, when Appellants filed the underlying negligence lawsuit, Uber, Gegen, LLC, Raiser-PA LLC, and Raiser, LLC ³ (collectively, Uber Appellees) moved to compel arbitration, asserting that the couple's conduct on the company's website and application — when they registered for the ridesharing service — signified that they agreed to be bound by the mandatory arbitration provision found in the hyperlinked terms and conditions, thereby relinquishing their right to a jury trial. The trial court granted the petition, determining the parties had not been forced out of court. In doing so, the court failed to consider this Commonwealth's important and protected constitutional right to a jury trial. Because we conclude that Appellants are legally entitled to relief, we reverse the trial court's order granting Uber Appellees’ petition. We further opine that Appellants demonstrated there was a lack of a valid agreement to arbitrate; therefore, they are entitled to invoke their constitutional right to a jury trial. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The trial court recited the relevant facts and procedural history as follows:

[Appellant] Shannon Chilutti, who uses a wheelchair for mobility assistance, used the Uber software application to obtain a ride home from a medical appointment. The driver of the vehicle that responded to her Uber request, Mohammed Basheir, secured Mrs. Chilutti's wheelchair using pre-positioned retractable hooks but failed to provide a seatbelt for Mrs. Chilutti, despite her request for one. While driving, Basheir allegedly made an aggressive left-hand turn, causing Mrs. Chilutti to fall out of her wheelchair and strike her head, rendering her unconscious. [Appellant] Keith Chilutti was riding in the vehicle and observed his wife fall and strike her head.

On September 17, 2020, [Appellants] filed a complaint seeking to recover for injuries sustained as a result of the March 20, 2019 incident. [Uber Appellees] filed a petition to compel arbitration in which they argued the terms and conditions of the Uber application required [Appellants] to arbitrate their claims. Following extensive briefing by the parties, th[e trial] court granted the petition to compel arbitration and stayed this matter as to [Uber Appellees on April 26, 2021].

Trial Court Opinion, 6/2/21, at 1-2 (citations and some capitalization omitted). Appellants timely appealed. ^{4 ,5} On October 12, 2022, a three-judge panel of this Court published an opinion reversing the trial court's order granting Uber Appellees’ motion to compel arbitration. See Chilutti v. Uber Techs., Inc. , 1023 EDA 2021, 2022 PA Super 172 (Pa. Super. Oct. 12, 2022). Uber Appellees subsequently filed an application for reargument en banc . On December 27, 2022, this Court issued a per curiam order granting reargument and withdrawing the panel's October 12, 2022, decision. Pursuant to the order, Appellants filed a supplemental brief ⁶ on January 17, 2023, while Uber Appellees filed a substituted brief ⁷ on February 7, 2023. ⁸

Appellants raise one issue on appeal:

Did the trial court err in granting [Appellees’] Petition to Compel Arbitration where the evidence before the trial court demonstrated that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties because [Appellees] failed to establish that Uber's registration process and/or subsequent emails properly communicated an offer to arbitrate to [Appellants] under Pennsylvania law?

Appellants’ Brief at 4.

I. Appealability and Pa.R.A.P. 313(b)

Appellants first assert that the trial court's order compelling arbitration is immediately appealable as a collateral order pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 313(b). See Appellants’ Brief at 26-30.

Since this issue concerns appealability, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See N.A.M. v. M.P.W. , 168 A.3d 256, 260 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). Regarding jurisdiction,

[t]his Court may address the merits of an appeal taken from "(a) a final order or an order certified as a final order; (2) an interlocutory order [appealable] as of right; (3) an interlocutory order [appealable] by permission; or (4) a collateral order." Commerce Bank v. Kessler , 46 A.3d 724, 728 (Pa. Super. 2012), quoting Stahl v. Redcay , 897 A.2d 478, 485 (Pa. Super. 2006) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 341(b). "As a general rule, only final orders are appealable, and final orders are defined as orders disposing of all claims and all parties." Am. Indep. Ins. Co. v. E.S. , 809 A.2d 388, 391 (Pa. Super. 2002) ; see also Pa.R.A.P. 341(a) ("[A]n appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of a government unit or trial court.").

Haviland v. Kline & Specter, P.C. , 182 A.3d 488, 492 (Pa. Super. 2018).

"Thus, to determine whether finality is achieved, ‘we must consider whether the practical ramification of the order will be to dispose of the case, making review appropriate.’ " Friia v. Friia , 780 A.2d 664, 667 (Pa. Super. 2001) (quoting Kulp [ v. Hrivnak , 765 A.2d 796, 798 (Pa. Super. 2000)] ). Typically, a trial court's order directing a dispute to arbitration will not be deemed final, as it does not address the merits of the parties’ claims but merely transfers their existing dispute to another forum in accordance with the arbitration provision of the underlying contract. See Schantz v. Dodgeland , 830 A.2d 1265, 1266-67 (Pa. Super. 2003).

Fastuca v. L.W. Molnar & Assocs. , 950 A.2d 980, 986 (Pa. Super. 2008). ⁹

As mentioned above, Appellants contend that we have jurisdiction to review this appeal as a collateral order pursuant to Rule 313(b). Under Rule 313(b),

[a] collateral order is an order separable from and collateral to the main cause of action where the right involved is too important to be denied review and the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparable lost.

Pa.R.A.P. 313(b).

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously stated:

Rule of Appellate Procedure 313 sets forth a narrow exception to the general rule that only final orders are subject to appellate review. Under this exception, an interlocutory order is considered "final" and immediately appealable if (1) it is separable from and collateral to the main cause of action; (2) the right involved is too important to be denied review; and (3) the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claimed right will be irreparably lost. This third prong requires that the matter must effectively be unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.

Commonwealth v. Wells , 553 Pa. 424, 719 A.2d 729, 730 (1998) (citations omitted). See also Beltran v. Piersody , 748 A.2d 715, 718 (Pa. Super. 2000) (relying on Wells ).

Here, the dispute involves the third prong — whether the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment, the claimed right will be irreparably lost. ¹⁰ See Beltran , 748 A.2d at 718.

Appellants argue, "If this Court quashes the instant appeal and requires [Appellants] to arbitrate their claims against the Uber [Appellees] in accordance with the rule of the American Arbitration Association (‘AAA’), it will result in the loss of appellate review regarding whether Uber's arbitration provision is valid under Pennsylvania law." Appellants’ Brief at 28. ¹¹

In concluding Uber Appellees’ petition to compel arbitration is nonappealable, the trial court stated:

Applying the long settled precedent as set forth in Maleski [ v. Mut. Fire, Marine & Inland Ins. Co. , 534 Pa. 575, 633 A.2d 1143, 1145 (1993), ¹² ] it is clear this Court's Order granting the Petition to Compel Arbitration filed

...