Adams, C. v. Hellings Builders, Inc.
146 A.3d 795
Pa. Super. Ct.2016Background
- Christopher and Margaret Adams purchased a home in 2011 from the Witzkys; the Witzkys had bought the newly constructed home from Hellings Builders in 2008.
- In 2014 the Adamses observed moisture concerns in the neighborhood, had infrared testing done, and alleged moisture infiltration and mold from improperly applied stucco.
- Adamses sued Hellings alleging UTPCPL and common‑law fraud claims, asserting reliance on Hellings’ promotional materials and representations about construction quality and a three‑coat stucco system.
- Hellings filed preliminary objections arguing the Adamses lacked privity and made no direct representations to the Adamses, so they could not state UTPCPL or fraud claims.
- The trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint, reasoning the Adamses did not allege they relied on representations made directly to them.
- On appeal the Superior Court reviewed the complaint under the demurrer standard, accepted pleaded facts as true, and reinstated the complaint, holding privity is not required when reliance is specially foreseeable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UTPCPL/fraud claims require direct representations to the plaintiff | Adams: Hellings’ public/promotional representations and warranty statements to original buyers were relied on by subsequent buyers | Hellings: Adamses had no direct dealings or communications with Hellings and thus lack standing under UTPCPL and fraud | Reversed dismissal: privity not required; claims survive at pleading stage when reliance by subsequent buyer is specially foreseeable |
| Whether reliance by a subsequent purchaser is "specially foreseeable" | Adams: Subsequent buyers are specially foreseeable recipients of builder representations and can rely on them | Hellings: Representations were to original buyers only; any reliance by Adamses was on the sellers, not Hellings | Court: Woodward and Valley Forge establish subsequent purchasers can be specially foreseeable; pleadings alleged sufficient foreseeability and reliance |
| Whether UTPCPL requires privity | Adams: UTPCPL is remedial and should not be read to require privity | Hellings: Silence of statute + lack of direct reliance means no claim | Court: UTPCPL does not require strict privity; statute construed broadly to effectuate consumer protection |
| Whether dismissal on preliminary objections was appropriate given pleadings | Adams: Facts and inferences pleaded must be taken as true and dismissal was improper | Hellings: Facts show no direct representations to Adamses so demurrer proper | Court: Applied demurrer standard, found pleadings adequate and vacated dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodward v. Dietrich, 548 A.2d 301 (Pa. Super. 1988) (third‑party subsequent purchasers may sue for fraud where reliance is specially foreseeable)
- Valley Forge Towers South Condominium v. Ron‑Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641 (Pa. Super. 1990) (UTPCPL is remedial; strict privity not required between consumer and manufacturer/contractor)
- Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary objections/demurrer)