which included an investigation of the existence of prior title insurance, and to issue the insurance
rate based on the findings. Placing this burden on the title insurance company without a duty to
disclose and charge the correct amount would render the Amendment meaningless. See Slapikas v.
First American Title Ins. Co., No. 06-084, 2009 WL 2869944, **7-10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 4, 2009)
(summarizing the 2005 Amendments to TIRBOP). Defendant has cited no case which stands for the
proposition that after the August 2005 Amendment to the TIRBOP Manual the purchasers of title
insurance are presumed to know the correct rates which they are charged. In light of the complexity
of title insurance rates and the expertise of Defendant and title agents and the burden placed on
Defendant under the August 2005 Amendment to the TIRBOP Manual, the argument that Defendant
had no duty to disclose the right to the discounted rate is not persuasive. Defendant had the
responsibility to charge the correct rate, and disclosure of the correct rate is part and parcel of that
b. Use of Mail or Wires.
To establish a claim for mail or wire fraud, Plaintiffs must show “the use of the mails or
wires for the purpose of executing the scheme [to defraud].” Pharis, 298 F.3d at 234. “To be part
of the execution of the fraud ... the use of the mails need not be an essential element of the scheme.”
Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 710. Mailings merely need be “incident to the essential part of the scheme”
to satisfy the requirements of the mail fraud offense. Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1, 8 (1954).
As noted above, wire fraud has an additional interstate commerce component.
Plaintiffs claim that Defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activityconsisting of mail
and wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶52-53.) Defendant