X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 32 / 38

83 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

32 / 38

III. Plaintiffs’ Claim is Not Pre-empted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

Defendant asserts that even if Plaintiffs state a viable RICO claim, the claim is pre-empted

by the McCarran-Ferguson Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1012 (2009). The Act provides that “no Act of

Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supercede any law enacted by any State for the

purpose of regulating the business of insurance.” § 1012(b). This preclusion is applied when, inter

alia, “application of the federal statute would invalidate, impair, or supersede [relevant state laws].”

Sabo v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 137 F.3d 185, 190-91 (3d Cir. 1998). As noted, supra, Defendant

argued that applying federal law in this case would directly interfere with TICA § 910-44(b), a state

insurance law which purportedly provides an exclusive administrative remedy when a party is

overcharged for title insurance. (Def. Mot. to Dismiss, 23.)

As discussed above in Section IV, A, in light of the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s White

decision, the current TICA landscape is clear: § 910-44(b) does not create an exclusive

administrative remedy which would preclude Plaintiffs from filing this private right of action in

court. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint presents no conflict with state law that is pre-

empted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act.

C. Plaintiffs Assert a Viable Claim under UTPCPL.

Plaintiffs assert a claim under the UTPCPL, 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-1, et seq. (2008), for

fraudulent or deceptive conduct in connection with the title insurance transaction. (Pl. Am. Compl.

¶¶77-78.) The general purpose of this consumer protection law is to protect the public from fraud

and unfair or deceptive business practices. Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022, 1029 (Pa.

Super. 2005). The UTPCPL “is to be construed liberally to effect its object of preventing unfair or

32

Document info
Document views83
Page views83
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 21:08:28 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments