Appellant, Grant Colledge, appeals from the judgment entered in the York County Court of Common Pleas, in favor of Appel-lees in this action for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). 1 In this appeal, Appellant asks us to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a finding of personal liability and whether the court’s decision to permit UTPCPL liability based on “misleading conduct” was an improper reading of Pennsylvania law. For the following reasons, we hold the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for the jury to find that Appellant specifically agreed to assume personal liability on the contracts at issue. We further hold the court correctly instructed the jury on the relevant standard for the UTPCPL catchall provision when it stated “misleading conduct” could support a violation and later properly doubled the damages award pursuant to the UTPCPL. Accordingly, we affirm.
The relevant facts and procedural history of this case are as follows. In 2004, Appellees Greg and Sandra Bennett (“the Bennetts”) and Kurt and Carol Hoefferle (“the Hoefferles”) contracted with AT. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings LLC (“A.T. Masterpiece”) 2 for the construction of new residential homes in a development called Overpond Court. Appellant was the managing member of A.T. Masterpiece. During construction of the homes, both the Bennetts and Hoefferles noticed numerous building deficiencies. Appellant was the primary contact during the construction process and assured the Bennetts and the Hoefferles regarding the quality of the work on their homes. Appellant’s assurances were specific, direct, and often in the form of personal guarantees. Once construction finished, Appellees discovered their newly-constructed homes were in *148 various states of disrepair and structural failure.
The problems in the Hoefferles’ house were mainly in the dormer above the garage. When Mr. Hoefferle noticed the dormer Appellant and A.T. Masterpiece had constructed did not correspond to the building plans and structural design, he raised the issue with Appellant. Appellant assured him that the dormer had been redesigned, and the final product would work fine. Mr. Hoefferle expressed continued concern, but Appellant certified the design and quality of the new dormer. After construction finished, the dormer was in such bad structural shape that Mr. Hoefferle had to install temporary bracing to avoid collapse. There were also deficiencies in other parts of their home. Nails protruded from sections of drywall and the floors were so poorly laid, a person could feel the joints move while walking. The windows were drafty and, on several occasions, the Hoefferles could smell gas coming from the basement.
Steven Yingst, an engineering expert who inspected the Hoefferles’ home, stated the home had several items in violation of the housing code. Other aspects were code compliant but nevertheless poorly designed or constructed. Regarding the dormer, Mr. Yingst concluded the work did not comply with the structural specifications and had inadequate support in the framing. Mr. Yingst believed there would have been structural failure in the dormer if Mr. Hoefferle had not taken corrective action. In addition, Mr. Yingst noted the lumber used throughout the house was a poor grade of wood. The bad lumber led to insufficient floor support in several areas of the home, which caused the floors to sag, bounce, and flex. The insulation, height clearances, ventilation, and electrical systems were all in violation of the housing code. In total, Mr. Yingst estimated repairs to the Hoefferles’ home would cost approximately $64,000.00.
The Bennetts had similar experiences during the construction of their home. While visiting the house to check on its progress, Mrs. Bennett noticed a crack in the foundation. She also found water in the basement and traced the water to a crack in a basement doorframe. When Mrs. Bennett reported the crack to Appellant, he said he “will take care of it and will take care of you.” The floorboards in other areas of the home were warped, and Mrs. Bennett brought it to Appellant’s attention. Appellant made more guarantees regarding the flooring and repeated his intention to take care of both the specific problem and Mrs. Bennett’s general concerns. Once construction finished and the Bennetts moved in to their new home, more problems arose. Mr. Bennett found kitchen tiles were cracked and felt the floors bounce as he walked across them.
Mr. Yingst also examined the Bennetts’ home and found construction defects similar to those he had seen in the Hoefferles’ residence. The floor joists were improperly installed and caused the flooring to sag and bounce. Like the Hoefferles, the lumber used in the Bennetts home was not grade stamped. The plumbing, electrical, and ventilation systems were in violation of the housing code. In Mr. Yingst’s estimation, the Bennetts’ home required $122,000.00 in repairs.
On May 2, 2007, the Bennetts and the Hoefferles (collectively, Appellees) filed suit against Appellant and A.T. Masterpiece for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the UTPCPL. Appellees alleged Appellant and A.T. Masterpiece built defective homes for Ap-pellees and engaged in deceptive and dishonest practices during the construction process. After extensive discovery, the case proceeded to a bifurcated jury trial *149 in April 2011. At the conclusion of the first phase, the jury found Appellant and A.T. Masterpiece liable for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and violations of the UTPCPL. Further, the jury concluded Appellant’s representations and guarantees regarding the homes exposed him to personal liability. The case then moved to the damages phase, where the jury found Appellant liable to the Hoef-ferles for $26,000.00 and to the Bennetts for $85,000.00. The court doubled the damages, pursuant to the UTPCPL, and assessed counsel fees of $8,250.00. As a result, the total judgment against Appellant was $173,250.00 for the Bennetts and $55,250.00 for the Hoefferles. On April 15, 2011, Appellant timely filed post-trial motions seeking a new trial, which the court denied , on July 11, 2011. On July 22, 2011, Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal. The court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), and Appellant timely complied on August 9, 2011.
Appellant raises three issues for our review:
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY PERMITTING THE JURY TO HOLD [APPELLANT] PERSONALLY LIABLE TO [APPELLEES] FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BREACH OF WARRANTY WHEN HE DID NOT “SPECIFICALLY AGREE TO ASSUME LIABILITY”?
DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY PERMITTING THE JURY TO HOLD [APPELLANT] . PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR BREACH OF THE UTPCPL WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY FRAUDULENT CONDUCT BY HIM?
DID. THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DOUBLING THE JURY’S AWARD UNDER THE UTPCPL WHEN THE COURT ITSELF STATED THAT [APPELLANT] WAS NOT, “AN ABSOLUTE CROOK WHO PREYED UPON INNOCENT PEOPLE WITH THE INTENT OF HAVING THEM SIGN A CONTRACT TO BUILD A HOME AND THEN ABSOLUTELY NOT PERFORMING THE CONTRACT,” AND CONCLUDED, “FOR SURE IT WAS NEGLIGENT”?
(Appellant’s Brief at 1-2).
In his first issue, Appellant maintains the evidence produced at trial did not support a finding that he had specifically agreed to assume personal liability for shortfalls on the building contracts. Instead, Appellant argues he should be shielded from personal liability because he was at all times acting only as an agent on behalf of a limited liability corporation, A.T. Masterpiece. Appellant claims any statements attributed to him (where he said “I will take care of it” or “I guarantee it”) were simply figures of speech and did not amount to an express assumption of personal liability. Appellant concludes the court’s decision to instruct the jury on personal liability based solely on *his first-person, informal statements to Appellees was incorrect and prejudiced him to the extent he should receive a new trial. We disagree.
When reviewing post-trial motions seeking a new trial, we consider “whether the trial court made an erroneous ruling and, if so, whether the mistake constituted harmless error or whether Appellant suffered any prejudice.”
Lockley v. CSX Transp. Inc.,
“It is a basic tenet of agency law that an individual acting as an agent for a disclosed [principal] is not personally liable on a contract between the [principal] and a third party unless the agent specifically agrees to assume liability.”
In
re
Estate of Duran,
In the present case, there was ample evidence presented at trial to lead the jury to find Appellant had assumed personal liability for part of the work performed on Appellees’ homes. With respect to the Bennetts, Appellant reassured them on several occasions that he would take care of their concerns and made express promises guaranteeing the quality of their home. These guarantees did not occur in a vacuum but in the context of recurring building deficiencies which arose during construction of the Bennetts’ house. Although the Bennetts officially contracted with A.T. Masterpiece, Appellant voluntarily assumed personal liability on the building contract when he guaranteed the final quality of the home. His statements were intended to calm the Bennetts’ fears about the building deficiencies and reasonably led them to believe Appellant would personally ensure the completed home was built properly.
Appellant’s guarantee to the Hoefferles regarding the redesign of the dormer had the same effect. By stating to Mr. Hoef-ferle that the dormer had been redesigned, and certifying the new design as structurally sound, Appellant augmented the original contract the Hoefferles had executed with A.T. Masterpiece. Appellant’s statements had the effect of personally obligating him for the structural integrity of the dormer because he made the statements with the goal of securing the Hoefferles’ continuing performance on the contract. Appellant voluntarily made the promises and at no time tried to distance himself from his statements, until the instant litigation. For these reasons, the court correctly concluded sufficient evidence existed to warrant a jury charge on Appellant’s personal liability. Therefore, Appellant cannot obtain relief on his first issue.
In his second and third issues, Appellant argues the court incorrectly construed 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi), the UTPCPL catchall provision. Specifically, Appellant claims the court fundamentally misstated Pennsylvania law when it instructed the jury that “misleading conduct” could suffice to establish a catchall violation. Relying on
Skurnowicz v. Lucci,
*151 In response, Appellees acknowledge Skumowicz, but point to federal cases that hold allegations of deceptive conduct are sufficient to establish a violation of the catchall provision. The federal cases distinguish Skumowicz and conclude the General Assembly altered the standard of liability for the catchall provision when it amended UTPCPL in 1996. Appellees ask this Court to adopt the rationale of those decisions and hold deceptive conduct can suffice to establish a violation of the catchall provision. For the following reasons, we conclude Skumowicz does not control and agree with Appellees’ arguments regarding the effect the 1996 amendment on the catchall provision of the UTPCPL.
Appellant’s second and third issues involve statutory interpretation, raise a question of law, and are subject to
de novo
and plenary review.
Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.,
The UTPCPL is Pennsylvania’s consumer protection law and seeks to prevent “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce....” 73 P.S. § 201-3.
3
The purpose of the UTPCPL is to protect the public from unfair or deceptive business practices.
Agliori v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.,
The UTPCPL provides a private right of action for anyone who “suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property” as a result of an unlawful method, act or practice. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a). Upon a finding of liability, the court has the discretion to award “up to three times the actual damages sustained” and provide any additional relief the court deems proper. Id. Section 201-2(4) lists twenty enumerated practices which constitute actionable “unfair methods of competition” or “unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” 73 P.S. § 201 — 2(4)(i)— (xx). The UTPCPL also contains a catchall provision at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). The pre-1996 catchall provision prohibited “fraudulent conduct” that created a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding. 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xvii). 4 In 1996, the General Assembly amended the UTPCPL and revised Section 201-2(4)(xxi) to add “deceptive conduct” as a prohibited prac *152 tice. See Act of Dec. 4,1996, P.L. 906, No. 146, § 1 (effective Feb. 2, 1997). The current catchall provision proscribes “fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi) (emphasis added).
Pre-amendment decisions from this Court relied on the plain language of the UTPCPL to hold proof of common law fraud was necessary to state a claim under the catchall provision.
See Prime Meats, Inc. v. Yochim,
Conversely, a line of cases from the Commonwealth Court have distinguished
Skumowicz
and its progeny, and in effect questioned the soundness of those cases as applied to post-amendment catchall claims.
Commonwealth v. Percudani,
Most Pennsylvania federal courts have similarly concluded the 1996 amendment lessened the degree of proof required under the UTPCPL catchall provision.
See Schnell v. Bank of New York Mellon,
The post-amendment version of the catchall provision applies to the instant case because Appellees instituted their claims in 2007, more than 10 years after the General Assembly amended the UTPCPL catchall provision. The post-amendment ie. current catchall section prohibits “fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” See 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi) (emphasis added). In its jury instructions, the trial court stated Appellees could recover on their UTPCPL claim if the jury concluded Appellant’s actions were capable of being interpreted in a “misleading way.” (See N.T. Trial, 4/6/11, at 187.) Notwithstanding prior case law on the catchall provision, our review of decisions from the Commonwealth Court, the federal courts interpreting Pennsylvania law, as well as the statutory language of the post-amendment catchall provision leads us to conclude the court’s jury instruction regarding “misleading” conduct accurately set forth the standard of liability under the amended catchall provision. 7
A contrary reading that adheres to the common law fraud requirement for cases arising under the post-amendment catchall provision ignores the textual changes of the 1996 amendment as well as the rules of statutory construction. Prior to 1996, the catchall section prohibited only “fraudulent conduct.” The legislature’s inclusion of “deceptive” in 1996 signaled that either fraudulent or deceptive conduct would constitute a catchall violation. The amendment also implied that deceptive conduct is something different from fraudulent conduct. See CSC Enterprises, Inc., supra (observing: “where words of later statute differ from those of a previous one on the same subject they presumably are intended to have a different construction”). Moreover, maintaining a standard that demands fraud even after the amendment would render the legislature’s addition of “deceptive” redundant and meaningless in a manner inconsistent with well-established principles of statutory interpretation. See Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League, supra (stating court should give effect to all language in statute and presume legislature did not intend mere sur-plusage). Overlooking the addition of “deceptive” would also neglect our Supreme Court’s pronouncement that courts should liberally construe the UTPCPL. See Monumental Properties, Inc., supra. For these reasons, we hold deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or *155 of misunderstanding can constitute a cognizable claim under Section 201-2(4)(xxi).
This Court’s post-amendment decisions in
Ross, Colaizzi,
and
Skumowicz
are distinguishable. Those cases may have arisen after the 1996 amendment and involved the post-amendment version of the catchall provision, but each case relies on a pre-amendment interpretation of the catchall section. For example,
Ross
cites
Skurnowicz
and
Sewak v. Lockhart,
Booze
is the lone post-1996 case from this Court that arguably mentioned the amendment, but that case is likewise inap-posite to the present case. In a footnote,
Booze
observed that the catchall provision was changed by legislative amendment to include “not only ‘fraudulent’ but ‘deceptive’ conduct as well.”
Booze, supra
at 880 n. 6.
Booze
nevertheless stated proof of common law fraud was required to succeed under the catchall provision, citing the pre-amendment case of
Hammer v. Nikol,
To summarize, Appellant’s second issue is meritless. The court’s jury instruction correctly set forth the relevant law when it stated “misleading conduct” could be a catchall violation. Based on the 1996 amendment, catchall provision liability can arise when the plaintiff alleges either *156 fraudulent or deceptive conduct. See 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi). To the extent Boss, Colaizzi, Booze, and Skumomcz provide to the contrary, those cases are inapposite to the post-amendment catchall provision.
As there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of liability under the catchall section of the UTPCPL, Appellant’s third issue must also fail. The facts presented at trial showed Appellant made numerous specific representations to Appellees regarding the construction and ultimate quality of their homes. Despite Appellant’s guarantees, he failed to deliver the quality he promised and both the Hoefferles and Bennetts received “brand new” homes in need of many thousands of dollars in repairs. The jury heard this evidence and concluded Appellant’s conduct was deceptive or misleading. In deciding on a damages multiplier, the court recited the jury’s findings and indicated its agreement with the verdict. The court noted the UTPCPL authorized treble damages but stated such a large award would not be appropriate in this case. Nevertheless, the court concluded Appellant’s conduct was serious enough to warrant a double damages award. On these facts, the court acted within its discretion in rendering a damages multiplier.
See
73 P.S. § 201 — 9.2(a);
Stokes v. Gary Barbera Enterprises, Inc.,
Based on the foregoing, we hold the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Appellant specifically assumed personal liability on the housing contracts. We further hold the court correctly instructed the jury on the relevant standard for the UTPCPL catchall provision, when it stated “misleading conduct” could constitute a violation, and then properly doubled the damages award under the UTPCPL. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment entered in favor of Appellees.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq.
. A.T. Masterpiece is not a party to this appeal.
. The protections provided by the UTPCPL also apply to residential real estate transactions.
Growall v. Maietta,
. Prior to 1996, the catchall provision was codified at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xvii). It was recodified at 73 P.S. § 201-2(4)(xxi).
. To state a claim for common law fraud, the plaintiff must show: (1) a representation; (2) material to the transaction at issue; (3) made falsely, with either knowledge or reckless disregard of its falsity; (4) with the intent to misleading another person or inducing justifiable reliance; and (5) an injury caused by the reliance.
Bortz v. Noon,
. Although some federal courts adhered to the rule that proof of common law fraud is still required under the amended catchall provi *154 sion, the majority rule now permits catchall liability attaches for deceptive conduct.
. The trial court might have relied on
Com. ex rel. Corbett v. Peoples Benefit Services, Inc.,
. Booze involved a class action complaint against motor vehicle insurance carriers who allegedly failed to divulge statutorily mandated information to the consumer both at the time of the initiation of the insurance contract and upon later renewals. Nothing in the disposition in that case stated when the purported claims arose.