X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 31 / 38

80 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

31 / 38

purportedly effectuated a fraudulent overbilling and misappropriation scheme by misrepresenting

the amount due and owing for title insurance through the use of mail and interstate wires. (Id.)

Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that wires and mail were used to transmit funds in connection with the

transactions and mail was used to send checks in connection with the scheme to overcharge for

premiums. Further, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant used mail and wires to induce Plaintiffs to pay

the overcharges and to conceal the deliberate overcharging. (Id. at ¶67.) Plaintiffs allege that more

than two such predicate acts have occurred in the past ten years, as required by § 1961(5). (Id.)

Consequently, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged at this stage that Defendant used the mail or wires

to effectuate the scheme to defraud.

c. Fraudulent Intent.

An intent to defraud requires that a party act knowingly and with the intention to deceive or

to cheat. See Hoffecker, 530 F.3d at 181. Plaintiffs have asserted here that as part of the agency

contract between Defendant and its title agents, Defendant reviewed the closings, settlements, related

documents, and monies received and collected on Defendant’s behalf by the title/settlement agents.

(Id. at ¶106.) Because the title agent and settlement agent were one and the same, the alleged fraud

is apparent from the fact that Plaintiffs were overbilled at settlement and lulled into a false sense of

security by the settlement agent that the correct amount was charged for title insurance. Defendant

contracted with the title agent and would know the correct rate to be charged because it is obligated

to abide by the TIRBOP guidelines. The inference from these facts is that Defendant permitted the

overcharging to occur knowing that Plaintiffs were being intentionally defrauded. This inference

is sufficient to establish an intent to defraud at the Motion to Dismiss stage.

31

Document info
Document views80
Page views80
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 13:16:56 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments