X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 12 / 38

93 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

12 / 38

how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule).

In White, plaintiff purchased title insurance from Conestoga Title Insurance Company

(“Conestoga”) while refinancing her home. Similar to the argument of Plaintiffs in the present

action, White contended that Conestoga, through its title agents, failed to apply the discounted title

insurance rate to which she was entitled under the TIRBOP rate structure. White claimed, inter alia,

that Conestoga’s systematic practice violated the UTPCPL.4 White, 982 A.2d at 1000-01.

The Court of Common Pleas dismissed White’s complaint with prejudice for failure to

exhaust the statutory remedy set forth in TICA before instituting a private cause of action with

respect to her overcharge claim.5 Id. at 1001. In resolving the exhaustion dispute, the Superior Court

discussed the concept of exhaustion contained in the Statutory Construction Act, 1 PA. Cons. Stat.

Ann. § 1504 (2008). The court noted that the “administrative remedy must only be exhausted where

the Legislature provides an exclusive and specific method for resolution of a claim, and where the

statutory remedy is adequate.” Id. at 1000. In determining whether TICA provides an exclusive and

adequate remedy, the Superior Court relied on legislative intent. See Jackson v. Centennial School

Dist., 501 A.2d 218, 219 (Pa. 1985) (“In essence, the key to our analysis is the clear legislative intent

to confine the role of the judiciary to one of review of an administrative process.”). Comparing

4Unlike the present case, however, White did not assert a RICO claim. Plaintiffs’ counsel in this case acknowledged at oral argument that the three related matters before the Court are the first title insurance cases involving rate discrepancies in which a RICO violation is alleged in the Complaint.

5White’s appeal was consolidated with Uyehara v. Guarantee Title and Trust Co., 2008 WL 2227295 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2008). The Superior Court de-consolidated the appeal and dismissed Uyehara due to the liquidation of Guarantee Title. Consequently, the Superior Court only reviewed White’s appeal. Id. at 1001 n.3.

12

Document info
Document views93
Page views93
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 13:24:30 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments