Kirwin, T. v. Sussman Automotive
149 A.3d 333
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- The Kirwins received an electronic solicitation advertising a 2012 Mazda CX-9 for $23,991 but were told at the dealership the correct price was $26,980 due to a purported computer error.
- The salesperson acknowledged the discrepancy, offered a two-year free maintenance package, but insisted on the higher price; the Kirwins purchased the vehicle at $26,980.
- The Kirwins sued under the UTPCPL catchall provision, alleging deceptive "bait and switch" advertising and seeking damages for the price difference.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Sussman Automotive and dismissed the Kirwins’ UTPCPL claim with prejudice; the Kirwins appealed.
- The Superior Court reviewed whether a UTPCPL catchall claim requires proof of justifiable reliance and whether the Kirwins produced evidence of such reliance to survive summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a UTPCPL catchall (§201-2(4)(xxi)) claim requires proof of common-law fraud elements, including justifiable reliance | Grimes — deceptive conduct under catchall does not require proving common-law fraud elements like justifiable reliance | UTPCPL still requires proving justifiable reliance and causation for deceptive conduct | Court held justifiable reliance is required; Grimes footnote is of limited precedential value |
| Whether requiring justifiable reliance conflicts with the statute's plain language and purpose | The requirement undermines the broadened post-1996 catchall and permits recovery for negligent deception without reliance | Reliance and causation remain necessary to limit UTPCPL to compensable consumer harms as intended by legislature | Court held the reliance requirement is consistent with UTPCPL’s purpose and precedent |
| Whether the Kirwins presented sufficient evidence of justifiable reliance to survive summary judgment | The Kirwins argued their purchase was induced by the advertised lower price | Sussman argued Kirwin knew of the price discrepancy before signing and chose to proceed, so no justifiable reliance | Court held Kirwins failed to present evidence of justifiable reliance; summary judgment for Sussman affirmed |
| Whether routine mispriced advertisements (pattern/practice) would constitute UTPCPL violation | Kirwins implied a bait-and-switch practice could support liability | Sussman noted this case involved a one-time mistake and offered a service package; no evidence of a pattern was presented | Court did not decide the broader pattern/practice question due to lack of evidence in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- DeArmitt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (justifiable reliance and causation required for UTPCPL deceptive-conduct claims)
- Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Philadelphia, LLC, 66 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2013) (discussed whether deceptive UTPCPL claims require pleading justifiable reliance; footnote suggesting they need not is of limited value)
- Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co., 105 A.3d 1188 (Pa. 2014) (Supreme Court reversed on ascertainable loss grounds)
- Bortz v. Noon, 729 A.2d 555 (Pa. 1999) (common-law fraud and negligent misrepresentation require justifiable reliance)
- Kern v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., Inc., 108 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Super. 2015) (reiterating reliance as an element of individual UTPCPL causes of action)