X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 2 / 38

111 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

2 / 38

        • b.

          Use of Mail or Wires.......................................................................30

        • c.

          Fraudulent Intent.............................................................................31

      • III.

        Plaintiffs’ Claim is Not Pre-empted bythe McCarran-Ferguson Act............32

    • C.

      Plaintiffs Assert a Viable Claim Under UTPCPL...................................................32

    • D.

      Plaintiffs’ Remaining Claims MayProceed.............................................................35

      • I.

        Fraudulent Misrepresentation......................................................................35

      • II.

        Negligence...................................................................................................35

      • III.

        Unjust Enrichment......................................................................................37

  • V.

    Conclusion...........................................................................................................................37

I.

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is a case arising from an alleged fraudulent scheme in which Defendant

Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (“Commonwealth Land”), through various title

agents, misrepresented the amount of money due and owing for title insurance.1 The crux of

Plaintiffs’ allegations is that Defendant overcharged thousands of Pennsylvania homeowners who

purchased title insurance by charging a default “basic” rate of insurance rather than a special

discounted “reissue” or “refinance” rate, which applied to the kind of title insurance required of a

homeowner as part of a mortgage transaction. Through this alleged scheme, Defendant received

considerable revenue to which it was not entitled.

1Also before this Court are two related cases, Schwartz v. Lawyers Title Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 09-841, and Levine v. First American Title Insurance Company, Civil Action No. 09-842, in which similar claims are made. Plaintiffs in all three cases are represented by the same counsel. The Court notes that defense counsel in Levine collaborated with defense counsel in the present case. The Court has issued three similar opinions in these cases, changing only the factual averments and the names of the parties in appropriate places.

2

Document info
Document views111
Page views111
Page last viewedSun Dec 11 01:01:45 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments