Thursday, May 6, 2021
In 1999, Gary and Mary Gregg enlisted the services of Robert A. Kovalchik, a financial advisor and insurance salesperson for Ameriprise Financial, Inc. As a result of misrepresentations made by Mr. Kovalchik, the Greggs ultimately filed suit against him and Ameriprise alleging – among other claims – an Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) claim.
[1]
It’s important to understand that a UTPCPL claim has teeth because – unlike common law claims – it allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees and treble damages. See Earl v. NVR, Inc., trading as Heartland Homes of PA: Werwinski is Dead. The UTPCPL is applicable to most consumer transactions including automobile transactions, home improvement contracts, home purchases, insurance contracts, leases, and service contracts.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s recent decision in
Gregg, et al. v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., et al. holds vendors that provide goods and services to consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania strictly liable for fraudulent or deceitful conduct under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PUTPCPL). As a result, a vendor’s state of mind and that of its employees when engaging consumers is irrelevant. The imposition of strict liability requires vendors to exercise the utmost care in their dealings with Pennsylvania consumers, particularly since a successful plaintiff can recover attorneys’ fees and treble damages under the PUTPCPL.