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.