Boehm v. Riversource Life Insurance –
Pa. Super – May 19, 2015
Fraudulent misrepresentation case in connection with the sale of life insurance
policies. Jury found in favor of
defendant on common law fraud claim, but court found for plaintiffs in the
amount of $295,305.78, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The Superior Court affirmed.
Liberal
construction
1994). “The UTPCPL must be liberally construed to effect the law’s
purpose of protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices.” Wallace v. Pastore,
742 A.2d 1090, 1092, 1093 (Pa.Super. 1999), appeal denied, 764
A.2d 1071 (Pa. 2000), citing Hodges
v. Rodriguez, 645 A.2d 1340 (Pa.Super. 1994 “In addition, the
remedies of the UTPCPL are not exclusive, but are in addition to other causes
of action and remedies.” Id. (citations omitted). “The UTPCPL’s ‘underlying foundation is fraud prevention.’”
Weinberg v. Sun Co., Inc., 777 A.2d 442, 446 (Pa. 2001), quoting Commonwealth v. Monumental Properties, Inc., 329 A.2d 812, 816 (Pa. 1974).
Standard
of proof
Trial court’s use of preponderance standard of proof affirmed. In the predominant number of civil cases,
where only economic and property interests are at stake, the evidentiary burden
requires only proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Section 201-9.2 of the
UTPCPL, providing for private actions, does not set forth which standard of
proof applies, and apparently the matter has never been decided by the
Pennsylvania appellate courts. There is no language anywhere in the UTPCPL
suggesting that private actions brought pursuant to Section 201-9.2 should be
governed by a more demanding standard of proof than proof by a preponderance of
the evidence. Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof, which
is the standard usually applied to remedial legislation, is consistent with the
UTPCPL’s purpose of protecting the public from fraud and unfair or deceptive
business practices. The court relied heavily
on and quoted liberally from Judge Wettick’s opinion in eck v. Metropolitan
Life, 2006 WL 634564 (CCP Allegheny 2006) and cited supporting case law from
other states.
Parol
evidence – Toy case
The court held that the parol evidence rule did not bar proof of the
insurance agents’ misrepresentations, which were alleged to be fraud in the
execution of the contract rather than fraud in the inducement. Toy v. Metropolitan Life, 928 A.2d 186 (Pa.
2007). The trial court found the the
plaintiff’s reliance on the misrepresenations was justifiable and that
plaintiff was credible
