PITTSBURGH LOGISTICS SYSTEMS, INC. Appellant
B. KEPPEL TRUCKING, LLC
from the Order December 1, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas
of Allegheny County Civil Division at No(s): G.D.13-18152
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., RANSOM, J., and MUSMANNO, J.
Logistics Systems, Inc. (Appellant) appeals from the order
entered December 1, 2015, granting B. Keppel Trucking,
LLC's (Appellee) petition to confirm an arbitration award
and granting judgement thereon. We affirm.
is a third-party logistics company that, among other
services, brokers transportation of freight between shippers
and trucking companies. See Pet. To Stay Arbitration
9/10/13. In September of 2009, Appellant began doing business
with Appellee, a large trucking company. Keppel Dep.,
12/3/15, 21:25. That month, an employee of Appellant called
to offer Appellee a load for pick-up. Spears Dep., 1/31/14,
8:23-9:10. The parties orally agreed on the price of the
shipment. Id. at 7:10. Appellee then received a
"carrier set-up packet" containing various forms,
as well as the Motor Carrier Service Contract
("MCSC"). Id. at 10:20- 11:9. Appellee
signed and returned the documents to Appellant. Id.
carriers used Appellant's web-based system, which enables
carriers to bid on loads posted by Appellant on behalf of its
customers. Homan Dep., 12/6/13, 23:5-16. If a carrier is
awarded a shipment, the carrier receives an email
confirmation that contains a hyperlink to the Appellant's
Use do not include an arbitration clause. See
this first job, Appellee did not bid via the online system;
Appellant contacted Appellee directly. Spears Dep. At
8:23-9:10. Nevertheless, twelve days after Appellee
completed delivery, Appellant emailed an award confirmation
of 2012, Appellant contacted Appellee for assistance with
another client, Streamlite. Id. at 14:25, 15:1-25,
16:1-6. Appellant called Appellee and other carriers for
their pricing and ultimately awarded Appellee the job.
Id. Thereafter, Appellant received weekly email
confirmations arranging shipments for the following week.
Keppel Dep. at 68:1-25, 69:1-6. This practice continued until
June 2012, when Streamlite abruptly went out of business and
Appellant stopped paying Appellee for shipments. Id.
at 19:22-20:14. Appellant pursued legal action against
Streamlite and was able to recover a portion of
Streamlite's unpaid balance. See Affidavit of
Ryan Boushell 5/13/14 at ¶ 10. Appellant offered
Appellee $9, 812.87, 19% of the $50, 513.15 owed to Appellee.
Id. at ¶ 12.
refused payment and, on July 23, 2013, filed a demand for
arbitration against Appellant seeking payment of the full
$50, 513.15. Appellant brought a Petition to Stay Arbitration
pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7304(b), which the lower
court denied. See Petition to Stay Arbitration,
10/21/13. The parties proceeded to arbitration, and
ultimately Appellee was awarded $50, 952.09, plus $637.50 in
costs. See Arbitration Award 2/20/15. Appellant
filed a Petition to Vacate the Arbitration Award. On April
10, 2015, the Petition to Vacate was denied. Appellant filed
an appeal, which was quashed as premature. On December 1,
2015, the lower court granted Appellee's Petition to
Confirm the Arbitration Award and entered judgment in its
favor. This appeal followed.
timely filed a court-ordered PA.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement. The
trial court issued a responsive opinion.
Appellant raises the following issue for review:
Did the Court of Common Pleas err in its denial of
Appellant's Petition to Stay arbitration and in its
subsequent confirmation of the arbitration award were [sic]
there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between the
Appellant's Brief at 5.
contends the trial court erred in compelling arbitration of
Appellee's claim for damages.  Appellate courts employ a
two-part test to determine whether a trial court should have
compelled arbitration: the court must determine (1) whether a
valid agreement to arbitrate exists, and (2) whether the
dispute is within the ...