The Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a decision Tuesday that clarifies when arbitration orders can be immediately appealed, ruling in *Chilutti v. Uber Technologies, Inc.* that a trial court's order compelling arbitration does not qualify as an immediately appealable collateral order.
The court vacated the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to quash the appeal, effectively ending the appellate review before reaching the substantive question of whether the trial court properly compelled arbitration.
Justice Brobson authored the opinion for the high court, which granted allowance of appeal to address the procedural question of immediate appealability. The case arose from a September 2020 complaint filed by Shannon Chilutti and her husband Keith Chilutti against multiple defendants including Uber Technologies, Inc., Gegen LLC, Raiser-PA, LLC, Raiser, LLC, Sarah's Car Care, Inc., and Mohammed Basheir.
The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas initially entered an order on April 26, 2021, which was later appealed. The Superior Court reversed and remanded that order on July 19, 2023, characterizing the trial court's arbitration order as a collateral order subject to immediate appeal.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed with this characterization. The court's analysis focused on whether the trial court's order granting a petition to compel arbitration of ongoing litigation meets the criteria for a collateral order under Pennsylvania's appellate procedure rules.
Collateral orders represent a narrow exception to the general rule that appeals must wait until final judgment. To qualify as immediately appealable, an order typically must be conclusive, resolve important questions separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable if appeal is delayed until final judgment.
By holding that the arbitration order does not qualify as a collateral order, the Supreme Court established that parties cannot immediately appeal trial court decisions compelling arbitration in Pennsylvania courts. This means that challenges to arbitration orders must generally wait until after final resolution of the underlying case.
The decision has significant implications for litigation involving arbitration clauses, particularly in cases involving ride-sharing companies and other businesses that frequently include mandatory arbitration provisions in their terms of service. The ruling suggests that once a trial court compels arbitration, the matter will proceed to arbitration without the delay that would result from immediate appellate review.
The case involved oral arguments held on September 9, 2025, before all seven justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: Chief Justice Todd and Justices Donohue, Dougherty, Wecht, Mundy, Brobson, and McCaffery.
The Supreme Court's decision not to reach the substantive question of whether the trial court properly granted the petition to compel arbitration leaves that issue unresolved. The remand to the Superior Court with instructions to quash the appeal means the original trial court order compelling arbitration will stand unless challenged through other procedural mechanisms.
This procedural ruling affects how parties can challenge arbitration orders in Pennsylvania state courts. Companies seeking to enforce arbitration agreements may find their positions strengthened by the reduced ability of opposing parties to delay arbitration through immediate appeals.
The decision comes amid ongoing national debates over the enforceability and scope of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. While the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not address the merits of the arbitration agreement itself, the procedural ruling removes one avenue for parties seeking to avoid arbitration.
The case highlights the complex procedural landscape surrounding arbitration enforcement, where questions of appealability can significantly impact litigation strategy. By clarifying that arbitration orders are not immediately appealable as collateral orders, the court has provided guidance for future cases involving similar procedural questions.
The multiple Uber-related defendants in the case reflect the corporate structure commonly used by ride-sharing companies, with various subsidiaries and related entities named as parties. This structure often complicates litigation and arbitration questions, as different entities may be subject to different contractual provisions.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of understanding appellate procedure rules when advising clients on arbitration strategy. The ruling suggests that challenges to arbitration orders must be carefully timed and may require alternative procedural approaches.
The remand to the Superior Court concludes the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's review of the case, returning the matter to the lower appellate court for dismissal of the appeal. This effectively reinstates the trial court's original order compelling arbitration, subject to any further proceedings in the trial court or arbitral forum.