utpcpl claim in Pennsylvania

2023In remanding the case for further proceedings, this Court made the following observations: (1) there should be “a sense of -8- J-A15045-23 proportionality between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney’s fees,” and (2) whether plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim “should [be] given consideration” in arriving at an appropriate award of fees. 751 A.2d at 685–686.

2023Co., 751 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2000)], this Court held that prior to awarding counsel fees to a plaintiff on a UTPCPL claim, the defendant must have “a fair opportunity to address” the legitimacy of the claim.

2025Furthermore, this Court has recognized that in the context of construction warranties, “[i]t is the failure to honor the warranty, not necessarily the issuance of the warranty that triggers liability and generates a UTPCPL claim.” Krishnan v. Cutler Group, Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 886 (Pa. Super. 2017) (emphasis in original; citation omitted). - 11 - J-A06007-25 As a preliminary matter, we observe Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in determining expert testimony was required to sustain their negligence claim.

2025Furthermore, this Court has recognized that in the context of construction warranties, “[i]t is the failure to honor the warranty, not necessarily the issuance of the warranty that triggers liability and generates a UTPCPL claim.” Krishnan v. Cutler Group, Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 886 (Pa. Super. 2017) (emphasis in original; citation omitted). - 11 - J-A06007-25 As a preliminary matter, we observe Appellants’ contention that the trial court erred in determining expert testimony was required to sustain their negligence claim.

2004In Debts v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137, 156-57 (Pa. Super. 2002).

2004Summary judgment based on the need for proof of individual reliance for UTPCPL claim (as set forth in Debbs v. Chrysler, 810 A.2d 137 (Pa. Super. 2002)), was denied by the Honorable Gene Cohen on the following basis: “In the instant case, there can be no doubt as to the materiality of the alleged defect.

2020“A UTPCPL claim is subject to the 6-year statute of limitations[.]” Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 206 A.3d 521, 526 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing 42 Pa.C.S § 5527(6)). - 14 - J-A03035-20 This Court’s review of Appellees’ Second Amended Complaint indicates that Appellees pleaded a HICPA claim,19 but that they did not specifically plead that Master Force had charged them an additional $2,000 for the installation of gutters and gutter covers, or that this resulted in Master Force’s violation of 73 P.S. § 517.9(8)(iii).

2020“A UTPCPL claim is subject to the 6-year statute of limitations[.]” Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 206 A.3d 521, 526 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citing 42 Pa.C.S § 5527(6)). - 14 - J-A03035-20 This Court’s review of Appellees’ Second Amended Complaint indicates that Appellees pleaded a HICPA claim,19 but that they did not specifically plead that Master Force had charged them an additional $2,000 for the installation of gutters and gutter covers, or that this resulted in Master Force’s violation of 73 P.S. § 517.9(8)(iii).

2023Moreover, “there should be ‘a sense of proportionality between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney's fees,’ and whether plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim ‘should [be] given consideration’ in arriving at an appropriate award of fees.” Id. (citing Neal v. Bavarian Motors, 882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2023Moreover, “there should be ‘a sense of proportionality between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney's fees,’ and whether plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim ‘should [be] given consideration’ in arriving at an appropriate award of fees.” Id. (citing Neal v. Bavarian Motors, 882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2023Moreover, “there should be ‘a sense of proportionality between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney's fees,’ and whether plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim ‘should [be] given consideration’ in arriving at an appropriate award of fees.” Id. (citing Neal v. Bavarian Motors, 882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2023Moreover, “there should be ‘a sense of proportionality between an award of damages [under the UTPCPL] and an award of attorney's fees,’ and whether plaintiff has pursued other theories of recovery in addition to a UTPCPL claim ‘should [be] given consideration’ in arriving at an appropriate award of fees.” Id. (citing Neal v. Bavarian Motors, 882 A.2d 1022, 1031 (Pa. Super. 2005)).

2021The UTPCPL also gives trial courts discretion to award a plaintiff “up to three times the actual damages sustained” as well as “costs and reasonable attorney fees.” Jbid However, neither the statute’s treble damages provision nor its costs and attorney’s fees provision is triggered until a plaintiff prevails on his or her UTPCPL claim, which requires, as an element, proof of the “actual damages sustained.” See, Krishnan v. Cutler Grp., Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 871 (Pa. Super. 2017) (The UTPCPL “authorizes the trial judge to grant a successful litigant an award for ... reasonable attorney fees, and

2021However, neither the statute’s treble damages provision nor its costs and attorney’s fees provision is triggered until a plaintiff prevails on his or her UTPCPL claim, which requires, as an element, proof of the “actual damages sustained.” See, Krishnan v. Cutler Grp., Inc., 171 A.3d 856, 871 (Pa. Super. 2017) (The UTPCPL “authorizes the trial judge to grant a successful litigant an award for ... reasonable attorney fees, and costs{.]”); accord, In re Bell, 314 B.R. 54, 60 (Bankr.

2021After concluding Anadarko was engaged in trade and commerce when it purchased mineral rights through leases, the Commonwealth Court then concluded these lease transactions can give rise to a UTPCPL claim because Section 3 outlaws all “‘[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’” Id. (quoting 73 P.S. § 201-3).

2021After concluding Anadarko was engaged in trade and commerce when it purchased mineral rights through leases, the Commonwealth Court then concluded these lease transactions can give rise to a UTPCPL claim because Section 3 outlaws all “‘[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.’” Id. (quoting 73 P.S. § 201-3).

2015In holding that plaintiffs did not state a UTPCPL claim, the Supreme Court, citing Weinberg , concluded that a plaintiff in a private action under the UTPCPL “must show he justifiably relied on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or representation and that he suffered harm because of that reliance.” Yocca, 854 A.2d at 438 .

2015In holding that plaintiffs did not state a UTPCPL claim, the Supreme Court, citing Weinberg , concluded that a plaintiff in a private action under the UTPCPL “must show he justifiably relied on the defendant’s wrongful conduct or representation and that he suffered harm because of that reliance.” Yocca, 854 A.2d at 438 .

2018Knight, 81 A.3d at 950 ; see Homeowner’s Brief, 659 MDA 2017, at 31, 34, 36-37 n.5; Contractor’s Brief, 659 MDA 2017, at 24-25; Order, 5/16/14, at 3, 5. - 33 - J-A04042-18 Judgment Entered.

2017See e.g., Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 951 (Pa. Super. 2013) (determining that gist of action for UTPCPL claim was in tort and not breach of contract); Gabriel, 534 A.2d at 393-394 (discussing cases where Courts analyzed whether claim under the UTPCPL should be subject to the tort or breach of contract statute of limitations).

2006Agliori, supra at 321 (emphasis in original). ¶ 27 In the case sub judice, Appellants argue that they, like the plaintiffs in Metz and Agliori , should have been awarded compensatory damages calculated in relation to the terms of the underlying transaction that gave rise to the UTPCPL violation.

2006Agliori, supra at 321 (emphasis in original). ¶ 27 In the case sub judice, Appellants argue that they, like the plaintiffs in Metz and Agliori , should have been awarded compensatory damages calculated in relation to the terms of the underlying transaction that gave rise to the UTPCPL violation.

2026Without even identifying the subsection of the UTPCPL under which the spectator’s claims arose, the panel stated: eliminated the need to plead all of the elements of common law fraud[.]”); In re Patterson, 263 B.R. 82, 92 (Bankr.

2026Without even identifying the subsection of the UTPCPL under which the spectator’s claims arose, the panel stated: eliminated the need to plead all of the elements of common law fraud[.]”); In re Patterson, 263 B.R. 82, 92 (Bankr.

2026Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error of law).

2026Butler v. Illes, 747 A.2d 943, 944 (Pa.Super. 2000) (holding appellant waived claim where she failed to set forth adequate argument concerning her claim on appeal; appellant’s argument lacked meaningful substance and consisted of mere conclusory statements; appellant failed to cogently explain or even tenuously assert why trial court abused its discretion or made error of law).

2026See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Szymanski, 936 A.2d 87, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2026See Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Szymanski, 936 A.2d 87, 92-93 (Pa. Super. 2007).

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2026Id. at 311 (citing Burkholder, 607 A.2d at 749 ).

2026Id. at 311 (citing Burkholder, 607 A.2d at 749 ).

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2026In this court, Mirabella argues four bases for deeming his first post-trial motion timely filed: (1) he was not required to file a post-trial motion on the jury verdict when the UTPCPL claim was still pending; see Sampathkumar v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 241 A.3d 1122, 1135 (Pa. Super. 2020) (finding where a case is divided into jury and non-jury phases, an appellant can wait until disposition on both parts phases before filing post-trial motions); (2) the victim’s praecipe to enter judgment following the expiration of 120 days from judgment was premature because the court entered judgment only o

2024See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Rule 1925(b) Statement … are waived.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); Krebs, 893 A.2d at 797 (“We will not ordinarily consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or suggested by an appellate brief’s statement of questions involved, and any issue not raised in a statement of matters complained of on appeal is deemed waived.”) (citations omitted).

2024See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Rule 1925(b) Statement … are waived.”); Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a) (“No question will be considered unless it is stated in the statement of questions involved or is fairly suggested thereby.”); Krebs, 893 A.2d at 797 (“We will not ordinarily consider any issue if it has not been set forth in or suggested by an appellate brief’s statement of questions involved, and any issue not raised in a statement of matters complained of on appeal is deemed waived.”) (citations omitted).

2023El-Gharbaoui v. Ajayi, 260 A.3d 944, 962 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also 42 Pa. C.S. § 5527(b) (stating that, “[a]ny civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter nor excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 (relating to no limitation) must be commenced within six years”). 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brian and Virginia Kerslake and : William and Cheryl Wardle, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1342 C.D. 2021 : Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. and : Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. : ORDER AND NOW, this 18th day of M

2023El-Gharbaoui v. Ajayi, 260 A.3d 944, 962 (Pa. Super. 2021); see also 42 Pa. C.S. § 5527(b) (stating that, “[a]ny civil action or proceeding which is neither subject to another limitation specified in this subchapter nor excluded from the application of a period of limitation by section 5531 (relating to no limitation) must be commenced within six years”). 7 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Brian and Virginia Kerslake and : William and Cheryl Wardle, : Appellants : : v. : No. 1342 C.D. 2021 : Sunoco Pipeline, L.P. and : Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. : ORDER AND NOW, this 18th day of M

2022Valley Forge Towers S. Condominium v. Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641, 647 (Pa. Super. 1990).

2022Valley Forge Towers S. Condominium v. Ron-Ike Foam Insulators, Inc., 574 A.2d 641, 647 (Pa. Super. 1990).

2021Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145, 149 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirming jury finding of UTPCPL violation); Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2005) (affirming jury finding of UTPCPL violation, but remanding for trial court to recalculate award of attorneys’ fees).

2021Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145, 149 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirming jury finding of UTPCPL violation); Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022, 1032 (Pa. Super. 2005) (affirming jury finding of UTPCPL violation, but remanding for trial court to recalculate award of attorneys’ fees).