Dickerson v. Longoria
Decision Date | 24 May 2010 |
Docket Number | 2009.,No. 74,74 |
Citation | 995 A.2d 721,414 Md. 419 |
Parties | Carman DICKERSON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Carter Bradley v. Ricardo LONGORIA, et al. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Leah M. Nicholls (Institute for Public Representation Georgetown University Law Center, Deepak Gupta of Public Citizen Litigation Group, Stefan Shaibani of Law Firm of Stefan Shaibani, PLLC, Washington, DC), all on brief, for appellant.
John J. Murphy (D. Elizabeth Walker of Walker & Murphy, LLP, Rockville), on brief, for appellees.
Kelly Bagby, AARP Foundation Litigation, Michael Schuster, AARP, Washington, DC, brief of Amici Curiae AARP, Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Maryland Disability Law Center, NCCNHR — The National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care and Voices for Quality of Care in support of appellant.
Monisha Cherayil, C. Matthew Hill, Public Justice Center, Baltimore, brief of Public Justice Center, Maryland Employment Lawyers Association, Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition, National Association of Consumer Advocates, and Civil Justice as Amici Curiae for appellant.
Argued before BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS, and BARBERA, JJ.
This case concerns a medical malpractice claim that the Estate of Carter Bradley ("the Estate")1 filed against Heritage Care, Inc. ("Respondent"). We have been asked to determine whether the Estate may be required to arbitrate its claims against Respondent because of an arbitration agreement that Carman Dickerson ("Dickerson") allegedly signed on behalf of Carter Bradley ("Bradley") when Bradley was admitted to Respondent's nursing home, the St. Thomas More Nursing and Rehabilitation Center ("St. Thomas More").2 Prior to Bradley's death, Dickerson, who is now the personal representative of the Estate in this litigation, represented herself as Bradley's agent when she signed the arbitration agreement with Respondent. Respondent argues, and the trial court held, that Dickerson was, in fact, Bradley's agent for purposes of signing the arbitration agreement and that the Estate must submit its claims against Respondent to arbitration in accordance with that agreement. The Estate, on the other hand, contends that it is not bound by the arbitration agreement and supports this contention with a variety of arguments.
We shall decide this case by applying general agency principles to determine whether Bradley authorized Dickerson to sign the arbitration agreement on his behalf. Upon applying those principles, we agree with the Estate that it is not bound by the arbitration agreement because Dickerson did not have actual or apparent authority to bind Bradley to that agreement. The general rule is that one may delegate to another the right to make decisions on his or her behalf. Indeed, in this case there is evidence suggesting that Bradley gave Dickerson authority to make health care and financial decisions on his behalf. The decision to sign the arbitration agreement in this case was not, however, a health care or financial decision. Instead, it was primarily a decision to waive Bradley's right of access to the courts and his right to a trial by jury. On the basis of the record in this case, there is no evidence suggesting that Bradley authorized Dickerson to make this type of decision on his behalf or represented to Respondent that Dickerson had authority to do so. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's judgment and hold that the Estate is not bound by the arbitration agreement.
Respondent filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, seeking to compel the Estate to arbitrate the medical malpractice claims that the Estate had filed against Respondent.3 Respondent asserted that the Estate was required to arbitrate those claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement that Dickerson signed when Bradley was admitted to St. Thomas More, arguing that Dickerson signed the agreement as Bradley's agent. The court conducted a one-day trial and held that Bradley, and subsequently Bradley's Estate, was bound by the arbitration agreement. The Estate noted a timely appeal of that ruling to the Court of Special Appeals, and, while the case was before the intermediate appellate court, the Estate petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari. Before the Court of Special Appeals could issue an opinion in the case, we granted the Estate's petition. Dickerson v. Longorio, 409 Md. 46, 972 A.2d 861 (2009).
This case concerns the arbitration agreement that Dickerson signed when Bradley was admitted to Respondent's nursing home facility, St. Thomas More. The arbitration agreement purported to bind Bradley to arbitrate claims such as the one the Estate brought against Respondent. The parties do not dispute the facts as described by the trial court. Accordingly, we adopt those findings as follows, with citations and footnotes omitted:
Based on these facts, the trial court determined that Bradley's Estate was required to arbitrate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
CX Reinsurance Co. v. Johnson
...terms of a contract." 120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor of Balt. , 426 Md. 14, 35-36, 43 A.3d 355 (2012) (citing Dickerson v. Longoria , 414 Md. 419, 452, 995 A.2d 721 (2010) ). Incidental third-party beneficiaries, however, possess no such rights. Id . at 36, 43 A.3d 355 (citing Lovell Lan......
-
CR–RSC Tower I, LLC v. RSC Tower I, LLC
...St., 426 Md. at 37, 43 A.3d at 369 (holding that the third party was “at best an incidental beneficiary”); Dickerson v. Longoria, 414 Md. 419, 452, 995 A.2d 721, 741 (2010) (third party was not a third-party beneficiary because “there was no arbitration agreement formed to which the Estate ......
-
Clickner v. Magothy River Ass'n, Inc.
...both issues of fact and questions of law, this Court will apply the appropriate standard to each issue. Dickerson v. Longoria, 414 Md. 419, 432, 995 A.2d 721, 730 (2010); see Diallo v. State, 413 Md. 678, 695, 994 A.2d 820, 830 (2010). The issues presented in the instant case are legal ques......
-
120 W. Fayette St., LLLP v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 81
...has expanded to permit “third-party beneficiaries” to bring suit in order to enforce the terms of a contract. Dickerson v. Longoria, 414 Md. 419, 452, 995 A.2d 721, 742 (2010). “An individual is a third-party beneficiary to a contract if ‘the contract was intended for his [or her] benefit’ ......