34 Pa. D. & C.5th 476
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Post-trial motions by plaintiffs Carruthers and defendants Northgate, Messner, SCCS, and Group are before the court; motions include some premature filings following the jury verdict and before final adjudication, now consolidated for disposition.
- The action includes breach of contract, UTPCPL, conversion, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, piercing the corporate veil, and accounting claims; Northgate asserts a counterclaim.
- Jury trial in late June 2013 addressed breach of contract, UTPCPL, conversion, and the counterclaim; the jury found Northgate liable for breach of contract ($525,431.19) and UTPCPL ($100) against Messner and Northgate.
- The court subsequently molded the verdict on September 13, 2013, resolving equitable claims and denying damages on UTPCPL; pre- and post-judgment hearings on interest and attorney’s fees occurred in late 2013.
- On November 19, 2013, the court issued an order and judgment detailing disposition of all post-trial motions, including partial denial of defenses, admission of prejudgment interest, and modest attorney’s fees related to UTPCPL, with other damages and fees denied or left unresolved.
- Funds in escrow were released consistent with the judgment and the court preserved the finality of the resolved claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UTPCPL claims are barred by economic loss/gist of the action doctrines | Carruthers argues UTPCPL is permissible despite economic losses | Northgate/Messner contend economic loss and gist doctrines bar UTPCPL | UTPCPL claims not barred; statutes interpreted broadly; doctrines do not apply to UTPCPL |
| Admission of post-2008 loan-default evidence at trial | Carruthers contends evidence shows deception, supports UTPCPL and contract claims | Defendants assert evidence irrelevant to 2008 conduct | Evidence relevant to motive and deception; admissible with or without limiting instruction; no reversible error |
| Piercing the corporate veil against Messner and Northgate | Plaintiffs seek veil piercing based on intermingling and transfer of funds to SCCS | Defendants challenge factual inferences and legal theory | Court’s piercing analysis upheld; Lumax factors not exclusive; defense arguments rejected |
| Judgment on jury verdict and post-trial molding of damages for UTPCPL | Plaintiffs seek to mold UTPCPL verdict to breach of contract amount | Defendants oppose molding and request, in part, new trial on damages | Judgment maintained as awarded; UTPCPL damages remain nominal; denial of molding and new trial on damages affirmed |
| Attorney’s fees under UTPCPL award | Plaintiffs seek substantial fees under §201-9.2 | Fees disproportionate to nominal UTPCPL award; allocation concerns | Fees denied except nominal amount ($1,000 each) aligned with proportionality; overall fee award limited |
Key Cases Cited
- eToll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Adver., Inc., 811 A.2d 10 (Pa. Super. 2002) (gist of the action and contract intertwined tort principles)
- Lumax Indus., Inc. v. Aultman, 669 A.2d 893 (Pa. 1995) (piercing the corporate veil—Lumax factors and amorphous remedy)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) (economic loss doctrine not binding; UTPCPL scope debated)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 327 A.2d 632 (Pa. 1974) (evidence may be admitted for one purpose but considered for another)
- Hart v. Arnold, 884 A.2d 316 (Pa. Super. 2005) (gist of the action—limitations on tort claims in specific contexts)
- Monumental Properties, 329 A.2d 812 (Pa. 1974) (UTPCPL’s remedial, broadly construed purpose)
- Watercolor Group v. Newbauer, 360 A.2d 200 (Pa. 1976) (veil-piercing doctrine—control and misuse)