Super. Ct. 2007). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts establishing justifiable
reliance on Defendant’s alleged misrepresentations regarding the amounts due and owing for title
insurance and the harm suffered by that reliance. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ pleadings satisfy the
particularity requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for fraud because Plaintiffs aver
specific details regarding the alleged fraud and the surrounding scheme.13 (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶53.)
Plaintiffs’ Remaining Claims May Proceed.
Defendant also moves to dismiss Count III, which alleges a common law claim of fraudulent
misrepresentation. Defendant claims that the HUD-1 contains no fraudulent misrepresentation. As
discussed above with respect to the allegedly fraudulent HUD-1 Settlement Statement, the HUD-1
contains deceptive information, and therefore it is appropriate at this stage for a common law claim
of fraudulent misrepresentation to proceed.
In Count IV, Plaintiffs plead in the alternative that Defendant knew or should have known
that Plaintiffs were entitled to receive special discounted rates based on the results of title searches
conducted in connection with the transactions. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶95.) Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant, through the title/settlement agents with whom it contracted, had a duty of care to set forth
accurate and lawful amounts due and owing for title insurance. (Id. at ¶100.) As part of the agency
contract between Defendant and agents, Defendant reviewed the closings, settlements, related
13Plaintiffs have also provided the specific TIRBOP rate which they claim they should have been charged. (Pl. Am. Compl. ¶¶(53(a)-53(b).) See Lum, 361 F.3d at 226 (the correct “prime rate” must be plead to adequately allege fraud with particularity).