Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—W.D. Pa.: No reconsideration of order dismissing UTPCPL claims against title insurer, (Jun 20, 2014)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The federal district court in Pittsburgh has denied reconsideration of its order dismissing deceptive business practices claims in a putative class action by a group of consumers against a title insurance company and decertifying the class (Slapikas v. First American Title Insurance Company, June 19, 2014, Conti, J.).

Consumers Anthony Slapikas, Alice Slapikas, and Ivy Foder filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The plaintiffs alleged that they qualified for discounted rates for title insurance policies purchased in connection with the refinancing of their mortgages but First American failed to apply those discounts, resulting in overpayments. First American’s motion for summary judgment and to decertify the class was granted on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of justifiable reliance. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration.

The court found that there was insufficient basis to vacate its order. A party seeking reconsideration must show the availability of newly discovered evidence or the need to correct manifest errors of law or fact. According to the court, an appeal pending before the state Supreme Court in Grimes v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Philadelphia, LLC, did not change controlling legal precedent that individual proof of justifiable reliance was required to prove deceptive conduct under the UTPCPL. Although the lower court decision in Grimes was contradictory to controlling precedent and a Supreme Court ruling could change the law, no such change had taken place to date. Moreover, the court’s application of controlling legal precedent could not be characterized as manifest injustice.

Moreover, in the event that a ruling in Grimes changed the requirement that an individual plaintiff must prove justifiable reliance under the UTPCPL, such ruling would have no effect on the order to decertify the class, the court determined. The class in this case failed to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Each plaintiff would need to present individual facts specifying the amount of the overcharge to determine damages which made the certification of the class inefficient and improper, the court concluded.

The case is No. 06-0084.

Attorneys: Adrian N. Roe (Adrian N. Roe PC) for Anthony L. Slapikas. Charles A. Newman (Dentons US LLP), and David F. Russey (Cohen & Grigsby) for First American Title Insurance Company.

Companies: First American Title Insurance Company

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices PennsylvaniaNews