Kern v. Lehigh Valley Hospital, Inc.
108 A.3d 1281
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Kern appeals a trial-court denial of class certification in a UTPCPL action against LVH for uninsured emergency-room patients' billing practices.
- June 9, 2011 emergency visit at LVH Cedar Crest; patient signed treatment authorization.
- Plaintiff alleges hospital concealed that uninsured patients are billed per a Chargemaster not accessible to patients.
- Medical bill issued June 16, 2011 for $14,626.53; settlement with amusement-park case for $1,000; no payment made toward LVH bill.
- Plaintiff amended complaint to include breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and UTPCPL—claiming deceptive debt collection.
- Trial court denied class certification under Rule 1702 after finding: dependence on individual reliance precludes commonality; and lack of 1708(a)(6) showing that individual claims are economically impractical to pursue as a class.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether justifiable reliance is required for private UTPCPL actions in a putative class | Kern argues Weinberg and its progeny do not require individual reliance for post-1996 deceptive-conduct claims. | LVH contends justifiable reliance is required for private UTPCPL actions, limiting commonality. | Yes, justifiable reliance is required; class certification denied on this basis. |
| Whether common questions predominate and class action is a fair and efficient method given reliance issues | Kern asserts uniform payment-obligation terms and similar billing, supporting common questions. | LVH asserts individual reliance and damages predominate; class action not a fair/efficient method. | No; prevailing emphasis on individual reliance defeats predominance and efficiency for class certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Weinberg v. Sun Oil Co., 777 A.2d 443 (Pa. 2001) (private UTPCPL claims require justifiable reliance and causation; false-advertising exception does not erase reliance element)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (private UTPCPL action requires justifiable reliance and causation)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (UTPCPL private actions require justifiable reliance)
- Schwartz v. Rockey, 932 A.2d 885 (Pa. 2007) (discusses reliance and ascertainable loss in UTPCPL context)
- Grimes v. Ent. Leasing Co. of Philadelphia, LLC, 66 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussed reliance issues in UTPCPL context; precludes broad non-reliance stance)
- DeArmitt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (reaffirms need for justifiable reliance in UTPCPL private actions)