deceptive practices.” Pekular, 513 A.2d at 432 (quoting Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties,
Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 817 (Pa. 1974)).
The UTPCPL provides a private right of action only to purchasers of goods “primarily for
personal, family, or household purposes.” § 201-9.2. Whether a purchase is primarily for household
purposes and a cause of action under the UTPCPL is available depends on the purpose of the
purchase, not the type of product purchased. Novinger Group, Inc. v. Hartford Ins., Inc., 514 F.
Supp.2d 662, 670 (M.D. Pa. 2007).
The Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs’ claim comes within the UTPCPL’s “household
purposes” requirement. § 201-9.2. Defendant argues that the title insurance policy Plaintiffs
purchased insures NovaStar’s interests, as the lender, not those of Plaintiffs. However, Plaintiffs
paid for the title insurance in order to refinance a residence they use for household purposes.
Lenders require that Plaintiffs pay for the title insurance issued by Defendant as part of the mortgage
transaction. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶24.) Plaintiffs have satisfied UTPCPL’s threshold mandate because
a mortgage for a home is inherently for a household purpose. See also S. Kane & Son Profit Sharing
Trust v. Marine Midland Bank, No. 95-7058, 1996 WL 200603, *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 1996) (finding
that a purchase of securities satisfied the “household purposes” component because the UTPCPL
should be interpreted very broadly to effectuate the legislature’s intent).
To bring a claim of fraud under the UTPCPL, Pennsylvania state court precedent requires
Plaintiffs to meet the elements of common law fraud. Weinberg v. Sun Co., 777 A.2d 442, 445-46
(Pa. 2001); see also Rubenstein v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., No. 09-721, 2009 WL 3467769,
*5 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 29, 2009) (dismissing UTPCPL claim for failure to allege specific deceptive acts).