TICA to the Unfair Insurance Practices Act, 40 P.S. § 1171.1, et seq. (1999) (“UIPA”), which was
designed to regulate potential unfair practices in the insurance industry, the court concluded that
neither statute was intended to provide an exclusive administrative remedy. See also Pekular v.
Eich, 513 A.2d 427, 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986) (finding that UIPA does not provide an exclusive
administrative remedy). Significantly, in White, the Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner filed an
amicus curiae brief and agreed with plaintiff that “TICA does not provide an exclusive remedy that
must be exhausted before seeking private action.” White, 982 A.2d at 1005.
Prior to the Superior Court’s ruling in White, Defendant, in its Motion to Dismiss, relied
heavily on two recent Eastern District of Pennsylvania decisions that held that TICA provided an
exclusive administrative remedy that must be exhausted prior to filing a private cause of action. See
Amato v. United Gen. Title Ins. Co., No. 08-3423, 2009 WL 691983 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 17, 2009) appeal
docketed, No. 09-2416 (3d Cir. May 20, 2009) and McDuffie v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., (E.D. Pa.
Mar. 30, 2009), appeal docketed, No. 09-2414 (3d Cir. May 15, 2009). Both decisions granted
Defendant title insurance companies’ Motions to Dismiss. However, both courts relied on the Court
of Common Pleas holding in White, which has since been reversed. Consequently, this Court agrees
with Plaintiffs that Amato and McDuffie should not be relied upon in deciding the instant Motion
Even before White, however, courts in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that TICA
does not provide an exclusive remedy for claims akin to those of White, Coleman, and Bowmer. See
Cohen v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., No. 06-873, 2006 WL 1582320 (E.D. Pa. June 5, 2006) (rejecting
defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under TICA); Guizarri
v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., No. 06-4630, 2007 WL 756722 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2007) (relying on Cohen