Zajick, K. v. The Cutler Group
169 A.3d 677
Pa. Super. Ct.2017Background
- Cutler built a stucco house in 2003 and sold it to the Santhouses; Karen Zajick purchased the house from the Santhouses in 2008 after a professional inspection.
- Beginning in March 2011 Zajick observed leaks and obtained a stucco inspection concluding the stucco system was defective and recommended replacement.
- Zajick sued Cutler in August 2012 claiming breach of contract, breach of warranties, and violations of the UTPCPL; all claims but the UTPCPL claim were dismissed on the pleadings.
- During summary judgment proceedings Zajick admitted she never communicated with Cutler about the specific house and produced an affidavit asserting reliance on Cutler’s general reputation, prior experience with a different Cutler-built home, and earlier general statements by a Cutler sales representative about homes in the development.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Cutler on the UTPCPL claim, finding Zajick produced no evidence of representations about the specific home or stucco system and thus no justifiable reliance.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, holding Zajick failed to show justifiable reliance on a representation by Cutler regarding the particular property or stucco system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Zajick stated a private UTPCPL claim without privity | UTPCPL does not require privity; Zajick relied on Cutler’s reputation, prior personal experience, and general sales rep statements | No actionable UTPCPL claim because there were no representations about this specific home or its stucco and thus no justifiable reliance | Court: No. Lack of any representations about the specific house or stucco means no justifiable reliance; summary judgment for Cutler affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (summary judgment standard and review)
- DeArmitt v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 73 A.3d 578 (Pa. Super. 2013) (de novo review of genuine issues of material fact)
- Toy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007) (summary judgment and viewing facts in nonmoving party’s favor)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 854 A.2d 425 (Pa. 2004) (UTPCPL private cause requires justifiable reliance and ascertainable loss)
- Adams v. Hellings Builders, Inc., 146 A.3d 795 (Pa. Super. 2016) (UTPCPL claim may proceed without strict privity when reliance on builder’s representations about the specific home is foreseeable)