X hits on this document





7 / 20

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


Document info
Document views104
Page views112
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 04:57:25 UTC 2017