Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Philadelphia, LLC
105 A.3d 1188
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Grimes rented a car from Enterprise in Dec. 2010; contract allowed Enterprise to charge for damage plus administrative, loss-of-use, and diminishment-in-value fees and to seek payment from Grimes’ insurer or credit-card issuer.
- After return, Enterprise billed Grimes $840.42 for repair and related fees; Grimes denied payment and retained counsel to sue to stop collection efforts.
- Grimes filed a six-count complaint in June 2011 including a UTPCPL claim under the catchall provision (fraudulent or deceptive conduct) and alleged she suffered damages; Enterprise counterclaimed for the $840.42, which Grimes admitted she had not paid.
- Enterprise moved for judgment on the pleadings; the trial court granted the motion, dismissing the UTPCPL claim for failure to plead an ascertainable loss; Enterprise offered to cease collection if the motion were granted.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding that (1) hiring counsel to halt collection and (2) threats to collect from insurer/creditor sufficed to plead an “ascertainable loss.”
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Superior Court, holding that hiring an attorney does not, by itself, constitute an ascertainable loss under the UTPCPL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retaining counsel and incurring litigation costs satisfies UTPCPL’s “ascertainable loss” requirement | Grimes: attorney fees/costs incurred to challenge deceptive conduct are a direct, recoverable ascertainable loss; the Act’s fee provision shows legislature wanted to enable small-claims suits | Enterprise: mere retention of counsel would let anyone manufacture standing; ascertainable loss requires a loss of money or property beyond hiring counsel | Held: No. Hiring counsel alone does not constitute an ascertainable loss under 73 P.S. §201-9.2(a) |
| Whether a defendant’s stipulation to cease collection can defeat standing | Grimes: Enterprise shouldn’t evade the Act by stipulating to stop collection; deterrence would be weakened | Enterprise: stipulation does not change that plaintiff failed to plead an ascertainable loss | Held: The stipulation does not cure Grimes’ failure to plead an ascertainable loss; her pleadings were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania Dept. of Banking v. NCAS of Delaware, LLC, 948 A.2d 752 (Pa. 2008) (procedural standard and statutory interpretation principles cited)
- Agliori v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 879 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2005) (plaintiff alleged concrete monetary loss from surrendered life-insurance benefits)
- Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P., 763 F.Supp.2d 742 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (tenant alleged withholding of security deposit and retention of counsel; court found alleged monetary loss supported claim)
- Jones v. Midland Funding, LLC, 755 F.Supp.2d 393 (D. Conn. 2010) (attorney consultation and litigation expenses do not constitute "ascertainable loss" under analogous consumer-protection statute)
- C.A.R. Tow, Inc. v. Corwin, 708 P.2d 644 (Or. Ct. App. 1985) (attorney fees are recoverable separately and are not the type of loss the unfair-trade statute contemplates)