in rejecting defendant’s argument that TICA provides an exclusive administrative remedy); O’Day
v. Ticor Title Ins. Co. of Fl., No. 06-4660, 2007 WL 756719 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 8, 2007) (same);
Markocki v. Old Republic Nat. Title Ins. Co., 527 F. Supp.2d 413 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (Markocki I)
(holding that plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing TICA claim under
Consequently, TICA does not provide an exclusive statutory remedy which must be
exhausted by a plaintiff prior to filing a private cause of action against a title insurance company.
B. Plaintiffs State a Valid RICO Claim.
In Count One, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant violated the civil RICO statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(c).6 Section 1962(c) of RICO provides as follows:
It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity....
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (2000). To state a claim under § 1962(c), Plaintiffs must allege that a “person”
employed by or associated with an enterprise engaged in the following: “(1) conduct (2) of an
6Though Congress created RICO in 1970 to prosecute organized criminal conduct, courts have refused to adopt a narrow construction of civil RICO. In Tabas v. Tabas, 47 F.3d 1280, 1296-97 (3d Cir. 1995), the court explained, “We recognize that our ruling means that RICO, with its severe penalties, may be applicable to many ‘garden variety’ fraud cases...particularly considering the judiciary’s broad interpretation of the mail fraud statute...We are bound, however, by the language of RICO itself and the Supreme Court’s instruction that ‘RICO is to be read broadly.’” (quoting Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 497-98 (1985)). RICO is to be “liberally construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.” Pub. L. 91-452 § 904(a), 84 Stat. 947.