McCabe, D. v. Marywood University
166 A.3d 1257
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Marywood University operated an NLNAC-accredited BSN nursing program; NLNAC granted accreditation with conditions in 2010 and later revoked accreditation on April 2, 2013, but an appeal restored conditional accreditation during the appeal and full accreditation was reinstated in August 2014.
- McCabe enrolled in Marywood’s nursing program in fall 2011 and relied on Marywood’s public representations that the program was accredited.
- After learning of the accreditation revocation notice in April 2013, McCabe chose not to return in fall 2013 and transferred to another school, incurring extra expenses and alleged lost income/opportunities from delayed graduation.
- McCabe sued (April 2016) asserting breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, UTPCPL violation, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel; Marywood filed preliminary objections and the trial court sustained them, dismissing the complaint.
- On appeal the Superior Court accepted McCabe’s pleaded facts as true but affirmed dismissal, concluding her complaint failed to plead recoverable injury because Marywood retained or regained full accreditation during the relevant period and McCabe voluntarily transferred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: Did Marywood owe duty to provide a fully accredited program? | Marywood’s website/literature formed contract terms promising an accredited program; McCabe relied on that when paying tuition. | Marywood contends McCabe failed to plead essential contractual terms and that the program remained accredited when relevant. | Dismissed — no breach: Marywood was accredited during relevant periods and McCabe did not plead she was prevented from graduating or sitting for licensure. |
| UTPCPL / Reliance: Did McCabe suffer ascertainable loss from reliance on alleged misrepresentations? | McCabe says deceptive accreditation statements induced her decision and caused financial harm when she transferred. | Marywood argues there were no material misrepresentations (program remained accredited) and McCabe’s transfer was voluntary. | Dismissed — no actionable harm tied to misrepresentations; harms stemmed from McCabe’s voluntary transfer. |
| Unjust enrichment: Did Marywood unconscionably retain benefit of McCabe’s tuition? | McCabe contends Marywood was unjustly enriched by tuition paid for an allegedly unaccredited program. | Marywood notes it remained accredited and provided earned academic credits; McCabe voluntarily lost credits by transferring. | Dismissed — retention of tuition for credited coursework is not unjust enrichment under pleaded facts. |
| Promissory estoppel: Is Marywood estopped from denying liability for its accreditation promise? | McCabe argues Marywood promised a fully accredited program in exchange for tuition and should be estopped. | Marywood characterizes this as a rebranded contract claim lacking factual support. | Dismissed / waived — argument inadequately briefed; on the merits, claim fails because McCabe didn’t plead she was prevented from obtaining a fully accredited education. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reardon v. Allegheny Coll., 926 A.2d 477 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard of review for preliminary objections and demurrers)
- Swartley v. Hoffner, Lehigh Univ., 734 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 1999) (private university–student relationship is contractual)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (UTPCPL requires justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss)
- 412 N. Front St. Assocs., LP v. Spector Gadon & Rosen, P.C., 151 A.3d 646 (Pa. Super. 2016) (elements of breach of contract pleading)
- Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 137 A.3d 1247 (Pa. 2016) (contract pleading principles)
- Hanaway v. Parkesburg Grp., LP, 132 A.3d 461 (Pa. Super. 2015) (no independent cause of action for breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing)