Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co.
66 A.3d 330
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Grimes entered a December 29, 2010 car rental with Enterprise; she declined the optional damage waiver and agreed to pay damages plus administrative, loss of use, and diminution in value fees.
- Section Six of the Rental Agreement explains how the fees are calculated and indicates that damage is not a contract breach and the calculation is not a liquidated damages clause.
- The Rental Agreement contains a Power of Attorney clause authorizing Enterprise to seek payment from Grimes's insurer for damage when the waiver is declined and payment is not made.
- Grimes returned the vehicle December 31, 2010 with a scratch; Enterprise sent damage notices on January 4 and January 26, 2011, estimating repairs at $840.42 (Moppert Brothers at Blue Bell, Inc.).
- Grimes and Enterprise engaged in litigation: Grimes filed a six-count complaint; Enterprise filed a counterclaim for $840.42 and later discontinued it; the trial court granted Enterprise’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 29, 2012; Grimes appealed on April 23, 2012.
- The issue presented on appeal include appellate jurisdiction after Enterprise’s discontinuance and Grimes’s UTPCPL claim among others; the court remands on the UTPCPL issue while affirming other claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grimes pled a cognizable UTPCPL claim under the catchall provision. | Grimes pled deceptive acts and inflated fees causing ascertainable loss. | Grimes failed to plead misrepresentation or loss tied to fees. | Grimes pled a UTPCPL catchall claim; trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings as to that claim. |
| Whether UTPCPL requires justifiable reliance for catchall claims. | Justifiable reliance is implied by alleged deceptive acts. | Reliance elements required for UTPCPL claims. | Justifiable reliance not required for catchall UTPCPL claim; plaintiff need only show deceptive conduct and loss. |
| Whether Grimes stated a cognizable breach of contract claim based on unconscionable terms. | Enforcement of unconscionable provisions breaches the contract. | Enforcement of contract terms, even if alleged unconscionable, is not a breach of contract. | No breach of contract based on unconscionability; contract enforcement not a breach. |
| Whether Grimes is entitled to permanent injunctive relief given UTPCPL claims. | Injunction needed to prevent ongoing deceptive practices. | Damages remedy suffices where UTPCPL claim exists. | Because UTPCPL loss is alleged, aid at law exists; injunctive relief not awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012) (UTPCPL catchall requires show of deceptive conduct creates likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding)
- Fazio v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 62 A.3d 396 (Pa. Super. 2012) (UTPCPL liberal construction and private action allowance)
- Jarzyna v. Home Properties, L.P., 763 F.Supp.2d 742 (E.D. Pa. 2011) (ascertainable loss shown by withheld security deposit and incurred counsel fees)
- Agliori v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 879 A.2d 315 (Pa. Super. 2005) (deterrence value of UTPCPL; misrepresentation can support loss under UTPCPL)
- Fisher v. Cole, 709 A.2d 994 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (UTPCPL private action and reliance considerations)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (need to show justifiable reliance and causation for UTPCPL)