Two Different Ways to Punish the Defendant
Some civil cases in PA involve a claim against the Defendant for treble or triple damages, which is typically for violation of a consumer protection statue, such as PA’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”). There, the plaintiff can get award for damage — times three!
Other cases involve a claim for punitive damages, which is not limited to triple damages. A claim for punitive damages exists pursuant to common law (judge-made law) and can be as much as ten times the amount of actual damages and it applies to both commercial transactions and conduct in violation of a consumer protection statute. Common law claims for punitive damages in PA exist where the Plaintiff can prove a fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or reckless behavior that’s both outrageous.
Seeking Both Triple & Punitive Damages?
What if the Defendant’s conduct violates both consumer protection law, such as the UTPCPL, and the common law rules concerning fraud or recklessness? Can the plaintiff recover from the Defendant both triple and punitive damages? But wait. Wouldn’t that be double punishment for the same thing? Enter the parties in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., which went all the way to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Dwyer v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc.
At the trial court level, in Dwyer v. AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC., No. 2 WAP 2023 (Pa. Apr. 25, 2024), Plaintiffs alleged that Ameriprise Financial, Inc. fraudulently and negligently induced Plaintiffs to purchase a universal whole life insurance policy on the life of Earl Dwyer with a rider insuring Christine Dwyer and the parties’ children. Allegedly, an Ameriprise representative misrepresented to Plaintiffs that their premium payments would not increase for the life of the policy. Only, if that were true, the policy would have lapsed in the year 2020 — thirty years ahead of the maturity date, allegedly! Moreover, as part of this deal, the Plaintiffs surrendered their life insurance policies from other companies.
The case went to a jury trial on claims for both violations of consumer protection law, seeking treble or triple damages) and common law claims for fraud, seeking punitive damages.
Good News and Bad News
The plaintiffs won: the jury found the Defendants liable for an award for punitive damages. Plus, the trial court found that Defendant’s conduct also warranted treble (or triple) damages. Only, the judge declined to award treble damages. Rather, the trial court found the award for punitive damages was sufficient to punish the Defendants and “deter [them] and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.”
But it wasn’t over.
Plaintiffs Appeal
On appeal, Superior Court affirmed the trial judges decision, finding the court acted within its discretion when declining to award treble damages after the jury had awarded Plaintiffs punitive damages for their common law claims for deceit. Plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
The Supreme Court of PA took a close look at the purpose of the UTPCPL and found that it:
…seeks to compensate private plaintiffs for their “ascertainable loss” by allowing them to recover up to three-times their actual damages.[35] This compensatory aspect of the CPL recognizes that actual damages may not suffice to compensate the plaintiff for the losses caused by the defendant’s wrongful conduct. Plaintiffs who accept the invitation of the CPL to embark upon a private action expend their own time and energy to do so. Even with competent attorneys, litigation is not effortless, and may arise only after the consumer has dealt with the hassle of ascertaining the wrongdoing of another.
In other words, the Plaintiff bringing a UTPCPL action is helping the Commonwealth enforce consumer protection law, generally. For this, the Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of actual damages plus treble damage and attorney fees, depending on whether the actual damages are sufficient. Importantly, this right to recover pursuant to the UTPCPL is independent of any common law remedy. The UTPCPL “makes available a separate remedy that cannot be preempted, substituted, or replaced by common-law remedies. Rather, damages available under the CPL are in addition to whatever remedies are available under the common law.”
Supreme Court of PA’s Decision
Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided:
[T]he trial court is directed to consider the remedial purposes of the [UTPCPL]—to incentivize private actions to root out unfair and deceptive trade practices, to compensate the plaintiff, and to deter wrongful conduct. The trial court is directed to determine whether the award of actual damages alone is sufficient to accomplish the legislative purposes of the [UTPCPL]. The trial court may not consider the Dwyers’ separate award of punitive damages or the award of attorneys’ fees, neither of which may serve to limit the availability of up to treble damages or additional relief under the [UTPCPL].
Meaning and Analysis
The PA Supreme Court’s decision in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc. is significant. In fact, a trial judge cannot rely on the fact of a jury’s award for punitive damages under the common law to decline to award treble damages pursuant to the UTPCPL.
Let’s Get Started!
Contact a lawyer at our Western PA firm for any litigation matter. In fact, contact us any time to schedule a consultation.
412.342.0992
Email Us Today
