PBS Coal, Inc. v. Hardhat Min., Inc.

Citation429 Pa.Super. 372,632 A.2d 903
PartiesPBS COAL, INC. v. HARDHAT MINING, INC., a partner doing business as Lion Mining Company, and Lion Mining Co., Appellants.
Decision Date20 October 1993
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

Gregg M. Rosen, Pittsburgh, for appellants.

Vincent J. Barbera, Somerset, for appellee.

Before ROWLEY, President Judge, and WIEAND and CIRILLO, JJ.

CIRILLO, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County granting appellee PBS Coal, Inc.'s (PBS) petition for stay of arbitration. We affirm.

In 1989, PBS and appellant Lion Mining Company (Lion) entered into a coal mining agreement (Mining Agreement). Under the Mining Agreement, Lion was to conduct a deep mining operation on the property owned or leased by PBS. In conjunction with the Mining Agreement, the parties entered into a Coal Supply Agreement whereby Lion agreed to mine and sell coal to PBS.

Pursuant to the agreements, Lion mined the coal until January, 1991, when it ceased all of its mining operations. By a letter dated April 3, 1992, PBS notified Lion that its abandonment amounted to a default under paragraph 17A(iii) of the Mining Agreement. Paragraph 17 provides in pertinent part:

A. It is agreed that the following shall constitute acts of default by a party hereunder.

i. The neglect or refusal of Contractor [Lion] to make payment of royalties, taxes or other sums required to be paid by Contractor hereunder ...

* * * * * *

iii. The failure of Contractor [Lion] to commence Deep Mining Operations or to mine such tons of raw coal from the Project Area as are necessary for Contractor to comply with the requirements of the Coal Supply Agreement, or the breach by either party of the Coal Supply Agreement.

* * * * * *

(emphasis added). The record reflects that PBS orally notified Lion's counsel that it did not consider the issue to be arbitrable. Thereafter, counsel for Lion notified PBS of its position to the contrary and appointed an arbitrator as directed by paragraph 18 of the Mining Agreement. Paragraph 18 of the Mining Agreement specifies that "any dispute arising between the parties hereto shall be subject to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act of 1927 ... and in accordance with the rules then followed by the American Arbitration Association, subject to the following: "

Arbitration shall in no wise toll or limit Owner's [PBS] rights and remedies with respect to defaults specified in Section 17A., subparagraphs (i), (iii), (iv), (v) or (vi). With respect to matters specified at subparagraph (ii), Owner's rights and remedies shall only be deferred until the arbitrator's determination that a default exists thereunder.

(emphasis added).

PBS filed a praecipe for writ of summons to enforce its rights and remedies under subparagraph 17A(iii), supra, and a petition for stay of arbitration pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7304(b) 1 claiming that the dispute between the parties was not arbitrable as defined by the provisions of the Mining Agreement. Lion filed a response and new matter and a petition to disqualify PBS's arbitrator. After arguments, President Judge Eugene E. Fike, II issued a memorandum and order granting PBS's petition for stay of arbitration and dismissing Lion's petition to disqualify the arbitrator as moot. This timely appeal followed. On appeal, Lion presents one issue for our review: Whether a coal mining agreement, which contains a broad arbitration clause that requires the parties to arbitrate all disputes other than those specifically exempted from arbitration, mandates arbitration of threshold issues uniquely suited for arbitration. 2

It is well settled that when one party to an agreement seeks to prevent the other from proceeding to arbitration, our inquiry is limited to determining: (1) whether a valid arbitration agreement was entered into and, if so, (2) whether the dispute in question is within the scope of the arbitration provision. Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Co., 459 Pa. 660, 663, 331 A.2d 184, 185 (1975); Canter's Pharmacy v. Elizabeth Assoc., 396 Pa.Super. 505, 508, 578 A.2d 1326, 1328 (1990); accord Sanitation Sewer Auth. v. Dial Assoc., 367 Pa.Super. 207, 532 A.2d 862 (1987); Hoffman v. Gekoski, 250 Pa.Super. 49, 378 A.2d 447 (1977). Arbitration is a matter of contract and absent an agreement between the parties to arbitrate an issue, they cannot be compelled to arbitrate. Shapiro v. Keystone Ins. Co., 384 Pa.Super. 397, 403, 558 A.2d 891, 894 (1989). Agreements to arbitrate are to be strictly construed and should not be extended by implication. Emmaus Municipal Auth. v. Eltz, 416 Pa. 123, 204 A.2d 926 (1964); see also Dickler v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc., 408 Pa.Super. 286, 596 A.2d 860 (1991). In addition, if the agreement or contract clearly includes or excludes particular issues or remedies from arbitration, a court may so hold without submitting these matters to arbitration. Alco Standard Corp. v. Benalal, 345 F.Supp. 14, 22 (E.D.Pa.1972).

In this case, Lion contends that the dispute between the parties is arbitrable because it is not specifically exempted from arbitration under the Mining Agreement. More specifically, Lion asserts: (1) that its contractual duty to mine and deliver coal to PBS under paragraph 17A(iii) of the agreement was never triggered; (2) that because of the nonexistence of minable and/or merchantable coal, the term of the agreement expired and, thus, Lion's duty under the agreement was discharged; (3) that since the agreement limited the scope of Lion's duty to mining the minable and merchantable coal which could be practically and profitably mined, the purpose of the contract was fulfilled; and (4) that its duty was discharged due to the nonexistence of the requisite coal which frustrated the purpose of the agreement. In summary, Lion contends that these threshold issues do not fall within the ambit of 17A(iii) of the Mining Agreement and, therefore, are subject to arbitration under the broad and general arbitration language of the agreement. We disagree.

Arbitrability of an issue is to be determined by the intention of the parties as ascertained in accordance with the rules governing contracts generally. Sley System Garages v. Transport Workers Union of America, 406...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Smith v. Cumberland Group, Ltd.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • January 21, 1997
    ...Farm Insurance Company, 433 Pa.Super. 594, 597, 641 A.2d 1167, 1168 (1994) (citations omitted); PBS Coal, Inc. v. Hardhat Mining, Inc., 429 Pa.Super. 372, 376-77, 632 A.2d 903, 905 (1993)(citations omitted). "If a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties and appellants' claim ......
  • A.G. Cullen v. State System of Higher Educ.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • March 15, 2006
    ...likely to express the meaning of the parties with respect to the situation than the general language." PBS Coal, Inc. v. Hardhat Mining, Inc., 429 Pa.Super. 372, 632 A.2d 903, 906 (1993). Only those matters within the contemplation of the parties will be covered by the release. Farrell v. L......
  • Hazleton Area School Dist. v. Bosak
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
    • February 6, 1996
    ...of the document and its express language. Rusiski v. Pribonic, 511 Pa. 383, 515 A.2d 507 (1986); PBS Coal, Inc. v. Hardhat Mining, Inc., 429 Pa.Superior Ct. 372, 632 A.2d 903 (1993). We recognize that the law favors settlement of disputes by arbitration and seeks to promote swift and orderl......
  • Rafter v. Raymark Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • October 28, 1993
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT