X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 34 / 38

95 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

34 / 38

Under Pennsylvania law, common law fraud requires: (1) a misrepresentation, (2) material to the

transaction, (3) made falsely, (4) with the intent of misleading another to rely on it, (5) justifiable

reliance resulted, and (6) injury was proximately caused by the reliance. Santana Products, Inc. v.

Bobrick Washroom Equip, Inc., 401 F.3d 123, 136 (3d Cir. 2005).

Here, Plaintiffs have alleged material deceptive acts on Defendant’s part that, at this stage,

satisfy the elements of common law fraud. Plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that Defendant fraudulently

misrepresented amounts due and owing for title insurance on the HUD-1, fraudulently

misrepresented the results of title searches, and misrepresented and misappropriated the sums

charged. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶77). Plaintiffs allege sufficient facts that Defendant employed unfair

practices that caused the likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in violation of UTPCPL § 201-

2(4)(ii). (Id. at ¶78(a)). Moreover, Plaintiffs have also alleged facts showing fraudulent intent.

Under the UTPCPL, a Plaintiff must prove justifiable reliance. See Yocca v. Pittsburgh

Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425, 438 (Pa. 2004) (“To bring a private cause of action under the

UTPCPL, a plaintiff must show that he justifiably relied on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or

representation and that he suffered harm as a result of that reliance.”). Plaintiffs allege sufficient

facts of justifiable reliance at this stage by pleading that no Plaintiff “would have knowingly paid

a premium for title insurance that was higher than the premium that was actually due and owing.”

(Pl. Am. Compl. ¶82.) Plaintiffs have alleged reasonable reliance on the veracity of the HUD-1

Statement and on the misrepresentation that the HUD-1 reflected the proper rates to which Plaintiffs

were lawfully entitled. (Id. at ¶80.) Indeed, “justifiable reliance is typically a question of fact for the

fact-finder to decide, and requires a consideration of the parties, their relationship, and the

circumstances surrounding their transaction.” Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186, 208 (Pa.

34

Document info
Document views95
Page views95
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 11:15:46 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments