Dibish v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
134 A.3d 1079
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Dibish sues Ameriprise entities in PA Superior Court for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and UTPCPL claims.
- In 2000, Dibish was advised by Suhayda to replace Prudential policies with a $50,000 policy for about $715 annually.
- She later learned premiums could not guarantee $50,000 until age 99; a Guideline Level Premium of $1,360.29 would be required.
- After trial, jury: negligent misrepresentation favored; fraud verdict for appellees; UTPCPL awarded via judge; damages $10,000 total with fees.
- Court remanded for breach of fiduciary duty; on damages, the trial court’s approach was reviewed and overall affirmed except for fiduciary issue remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on breach of fiduciary duty was proper | Dibish contends fiduciary duty existed due to confidential relationship | Suhayda/defendants argue no fiduciary relationship as matter of law | Reversed; remand for fiduciary duty issue |
| Whether damages under UTPCPL were correctly awarded | Damages should reflect difference between promised and received benefit | Damages should use appellees’ model and present value | No reversible error; actual damages affirmed, consistent with precedents |
| Whether treble UTPCPL damages were warranted | Treble damages should deter and reflect misrepresentation | Treasuring discretion to award up to three times requires proper evidence | Discretionary; no abuse; treble damages not required here |
| Whether attorney fees were reasonably awarded | Executive rate and line-item fees justified | Court properly reduced rate and items | affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether damages instructions and discovery rulings affected outcome | Instructions misstate damages discounting and reliance | Instructions proper; discovery claim waived | Not reversible; limited impact; discovery claim waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Boehm v. Riversource Life Ins. Co., 117 A.3d 308 (Pa. Super. 2015) (damages flexibility; deterrence of UTPCPL)
- Lesoon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 898 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super. 2006) (benefit of the bargain; damages assessment responsibility)
- Agliori v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 879 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2005) (ascertainable loss; UTPCPL damages framework general guidance)
- DeArmitt v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (ascertainable loss; UTPCPL damages framework)
- Helpin v. Trs. of Univ. of Pa., 10 A.3d 267 (Pa. 2010) (discounting future damages; six percent rule context)