298 F.R.D. 285
W.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege First American overcharged them for title insurance in Pennsylvania in connection with refinancings, via its agent Mezzo performing HUD-1 prep and remittance to the insurer.
- Rate Manual in Pennsylvania allowed three tiers: basic, 90% of basic (reissue), and 80% of reissue (refinance), with eligibility based on look-back periods.
- HUD-1 line 1108 itemized title insurance charges; settlement agents must clearly itemize all charges and actual charges paid.
- Plaintiffs Slapikases refinanced in 2003; premium charged was at basic rate, with a claimed $335.65 overcharge possible; they did not recall discussions about title insurance.
- Plaintiff Fodor refinanced in 2004; premium charged was at basic rate, with a claimed $90.87 differential; she did not read closing documents or discuss title insurance.
- Court certified a class in 2008 and later dismissed common law claims, leaving UTPCPL as the sole remaining claim, with later developments focusing on justifiable reliance and class predominance and damages.]
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether justifiable reliance can be proven for UTPCPL catchall claim | Plaintiffs rely on fiduciary exception or class-wide ascertainable loss | Hunt requires justifiable reliance for each class member; fiduciary fallback rejected | Justifiable reliance not shown; decertification and summary judgment granted for First American |
| Whether fiduciary relationship exception applies | There was overmastering influence and duty to charge discounted rates | No special facts; insurer-insured relationship remains arm’s-length | No fiduciary relationship; exception inapplicable |
| Whether circumstantial evidence supports justifiable reliance | Circumstantial evidence could show class-wide reliance and savings expectations | Hunt requires individualized reliance proof; HUD-1 disclosure not affirmative misrepresentation | Circumstantial evidence insufficient; cannot establish justifiable reliance |
| Whether class should be decertified due to predominance/damages | Rate Manual issues are common and damages across class; reliance presumed | Wal‑Mart/Comcast require class-wide common answers and damages system; reliance individualized | Class decertified; damages require file-by-file review; summary judgment for First American |
| Whether renewed summary judgment on MSJ mootness impacts remaining issues | N/A | Already dispositive; moot | moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. United States Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2008) (necessity of justifiable reliance for UTPCPL catchall)
- Toy v. Metro Life Ins. Co., 933 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (justifiable reliance requirement under UTPCPL)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (requirement to prove justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (redefines class certification commonality; needs common answers)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (requires damages model to be classwide and not rely on individualized issues)
- Belmont v. MB Investment Partners, Inc., 708 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 2013) (illustrates need for common issues driving resolution; damages considerations)
- Haskins v. First American Title Insurance Co., 2014 WL 294654 (D.N.J. 2014) (discusses Wal-Mart/Comcast in title insurance context)
- Ramirez v. Fidelity National Insurance Co., 2013 WL 5493023 (D. Ariz. 2013) (discusses class certification in title insurance disputes post-Wal-Mart)
- Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Co. of Philadelphia, LLC, 84 A.3d 1058 (Pa. 2014) (Pennsylvania UTPCPL pleading standards on fiduciary reliance)
- Cohen v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 2013 WL 842706 (E.D. Pa. 2013) (UTPCPL reliance guidance in title insurance context)