Jefferson, Z. v. Carosella, M.
1527 EDA 2020
Pa. Super. Ct.Oct 13, 2021Background
- Property originally built by Michael Carosella in 2011; later sold to an original buyer and then to Jefferson in 2015. Post-sale, water infiltration and defective stucco were discovered.
- Jefferson paid to repair the stucco defects and sought recovery; a jury found Carosella negligent and awarded Jefferson $289,532.50 (allocation: Carosella 30%, Mik Mar 70%).
- Jefferson also sued under the UTPCPL based on an e-mail from a Carosella representative saying the house was "done to code." The trial court tried the UTPCPL claim non-jury and denied relief.
- Key factual dispute for the UTPCPL claim: whether the builder's statement was deceptive and whether Jefferson justifiably relied on it when buying the house.
- Procedural posture: Jefferson appeals the UTPCPL denial; Carosella cross-appeals the negligence verdict and post-trial denial of JNOV. The Superior Court affirms judgment for Jefferson (negligence award) and affirms denial of UTPCPL relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jefferson) | Defendant's Argument (Carosella) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the statement "built to code" deceptive under the UTPCPL? | The builder's categorical statement was false and therefore deceptive; vendor bears responsibility regardless of intent. | Even if construction was defective, the builder reasonably relied on a certificate of occupancy and did not make a deliberately deceptive statement. | Trial court erred by considering intent (Gregg); but Superior Court affirmed UTPCPL denial on other grounds (no justifiable reliance). |
| Did Jefferson justifiably rely on the builder's statement when purchasing? | Jefferson contends the builder's assurance reassured him and influenced his decision. | Jefferson had prior notice of stucco issues, had inspections, and relied on other experts/agent; he accepted a $1,500 credit—so reliance on builder’s e-mail was not justified. | Jefferson did not justifiably rely on the statement; UTPCPL claim fails for lack of reliance. |
| Is Carosella a "vendor" under the UTPCPL (allowing third-party claims)? | Implicit: builders who affect purchasers are vendors and can be liable to foreseeable subsequent buyers. | Trial court initially held Carosella was not a vendor because he did not participate in the sale to Jefferson. | Superior Court held the trial court erred: a builder whose services affect purchasers can qualify as a UTPCPL vendor (but plaintiff still must prove reliance). |
| Can a subsequent purchaser recover in negligence from a builder despite lack of privity (and is Jefferson really asserting a warranty claim)? | Jefferson alleged negligent construction (not a contract/warranty claim) and is a foreseeable purchaser entitled to tort recovery. | Carosella argued the claim is really an implied-warranty/contract claim barred by lack of privity and by Conway limiting implied-warranty claims to first purchasers. | Court affirmed the negligence verdict: a subsequent purchaser may sue in negligence for defective construction (DeTillo/Grodstein line); Jefferson pleaded negligence and recovery was not barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregg v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 245 A.3d 637 (Pa. 2021) (UTPCPL deceptive-conduct test; intent not required; strict-liability focus on capacity to deceive)
- Commonwealth v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 247 A.3d 934 (Pa. 2021) (UTPCPL is remedial and construed liberally to protect consumers)
- Conway v. Cutler, 99 A.3d 67 (Pa. 2014) (limits on implied-warranty recovery and privity discussion)
- DeTillo v. Carlyn Constr., Inc., 206 A.2d 376 (Pa. 1965) (second-purchaser negligence recovery from builders when injury/damage to foreseeable users results)
- Elderkin v. Gaster, 288 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1972) (origin of implied warranty of workmanlike construction for first purchasers)
- Toy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (justifiable reliance: no duty to investigate, but not justified in relying on known or obvious falsity)
- Adams v. Hellings Builders, Inc., 146 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2016) (UTPCPL claims by third parties against contractors when reliance is specially foreseeable)
- Zajick v. The Cutler Group, Inc., 169 A.3d 677 (Pa. Super. 2017) (plaintiff must show justifiable reliance and resulting harm under UTPCPL)