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.