Procedure § 1298, at 407 (1969))). Instead, the court must evaluate whether the complaint
“adequately describes the nature and subject of the alleged misrepresentation.” Id.
Count I: Common Law Fraud
Counterclaim defendants argue that State Farm’s fraud claim consists of boilerplate
language that does not satisfy Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading standard. Specifically,
counterclaim-defendants direct my attention to State Farm’s repeated use of the term “and/or,”
arguing that the term renders many of State Farm’s allegations overly vague. State Farm
contends that its allegations are sufficient to establish the elements of fraud. I find that, though
State Farm’s counterclaim is not a picture of clarity, State Farm has pleaded certain facts that
support a fraud claim as to some of counterclaim-defendants’ reimbursement requests.
Therefore, I will grant in part and deny in part counterclaim-defendants’ motion to dismiss Count
Under Pennsylvania law, the “‘essential elements of a cause of action for fraud or deceit
are a misrepresentation, a fraudulent utterance thereof, an intention to induce action thereby,
justifiable reliance thereon and damage as a proximal result.’” The Brickman Group, Ltd. v.
CGU Ins. Co., 865 A.2d 918, 929 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (quoting Wilson v. Donegal Mut. Ins.
Co., 598 A.2d 1310, 1315 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)). Turning to State Farm’s allegations, I first find
that State Farm has alleged, with a sufficient level of particularity, counterclaim-defendants’
purported insurance fraud scheme. Specifically, State Farm asserts that counterclaim-defendants
(1) solicit accident victims to treat at Allied’s facilities, (id. ¶¶ 16-18); (2) place new patients on a
predetermined and standardized treatment program, (id. ¶ 19); (3) order procedures that are not
medically necessary or that are not actually performed, (id. passim); (4) offer incentives to those