Fazio v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
62 A.3d 396
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- In 1994 Donato met Fazios, completed assets questionnaire, and showed an illustration for Guardian Life policies totaling substantial annual premiums.
- Fazio purchased a life policy; Donato sold additional Guardian policies on Fazios’ life, wife, and three children across 1994–1997.
- Summer 1998, Fazios’ income rose; advisor Scarpo urged cheaper term insurance and investing the difference; Moore referred Fazios to counsel.
- In 1999 Moore advised and Fazios stopped paying Guardian Life premiums; Moore sent a letter to Guardian alleging deception and seeking refunds.
- June 2001 Fazios filed suit; nine-year non-jury proceedings led to a 2011 non-jury verdict in Guardian’s favor; UTPCPL theory pursued.
- Trial court held Fazios failed to prove UTPCPL violations; post-trial motions denied; judgment entered for Guardian, then appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial under UTPCPL | Fazios contend UTPCPL implies jury trial right via fraud theory. | statute silent on jury trial; court determines damages; no right to jury. | No right to jury trial under UTPCPL. |
| Admissibility of Gregory Moore testimony | Moore’s expert insights into deceptive sales tactics should be admitted. | Moore not disclosed as expert; testimony limited under Rule 701; letters excluded. | No abuse of discretion; testimony appropriately limited; business-record issue waived. |
| UTPCPL liability standard after 1996 amendment | Catchall requires deception; common-law fraud may not be necessary. | Pre-amendment fraudulent standard controls;案件 must prove fraud. | Deceptive conduct under post-amendment catchall can sustain UTPCPL claim. |
| Weight of the evidence on misrepresentations | Evidence shows misrepresentations in returns, costs, and use of misleading illustrations. | Trial court credibility findings should stand; no basis to overturn. | No reversible error; trial court reasonably found no UTPCPL violation. |
| Reliance element in UTPCPL claims | Reliance presumed from material misrepresentations. | Must prove justifiable reliance; Fazios failed. | Reliance issues not reached; Fazios failed to prove UTPCPL liability on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mishoe v. Erie Ins. Co., 824 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2003) (right to jury trial; post-UTPCPL interpretation)
- Wertz v. Chapman Twp., 741 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 1999) (court vs jury; legislative language of court role)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life, 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (fraud elements in UTPCPL; reliance required)
- Gabriel v. O’Hara, 534 A.2d 488 (Pa. Super. 1987) (UTPCPL limitations period; catchall context)
- Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012) (post-amendment catchall interpretation authority)
- Colaizzi v. Beck, 895 A.2d 86 (Pa. Super. 2006) (post-amendment catchall interpretation)
- Ross v. Foremost Ins. Co., 998 A.2d 648 (Pa. Super. 2010) (catchall/ fraud pleading guidance)
- Skumowicz v. Lucci, 798 A.2d 788 (Pa. Super. 2002) (pre-amendment catchall interpretation)
- Sewak v. Lockhart, 699 A.2d 755 (Pa. Super. 1997) (pre-amendment UTPCPL pleading standard)