Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Kirwin, T. v. Sussman Automotive
Citations: 149 A.3d 333; 2016 Pa. Super. 222; 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 574; 2016 WL 5868543Docket: 2628 EDA 2015
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania; October 7, 2016; Pennsylvania; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Thomas and Dianne Kirwin appealed a summary judgment granted to Sussman Automotive (d/b/a Sussman Mazda) and Eric Sussman in their lawsuit under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The Kirwins alleged a "bait and switch" advertising practice after receiving an email quote of $23,991 for a 2012 Mazda CX-9, only to be informed at the dealership that the actual price was $26,980 due to a computer error. Despite the salesperson offering a two-year maintenance package as compensation, the Kirwins purchased the vehicle at the higher price and subsequently filed suit, claiming they overpaid by $2,889. The trial court granted Sussman's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Kirwins' claims with prejudice and denying their cross-motion as moot. On appeal, the Kirwins raised three issues: whether a deceptive conduct claim under the UTPCPL requires proof of common law fraud elements, including justifiable reliance; whether such a requirement is consistent with the statute's language and intent; and if justifiable reliance is necessary, whether the Kirwins provided sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The appellate court's review of the summary judgment follows a plenary standard, considering if any genuine issues of material fact exist while viewing the evidence favorably for the non-moving party. Summary judgment is appropriate only when no material facts are in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) safeguards consumers against unfair or deceptive business practices and allows individuals to pursue private actions for any ascertainable monetary or property loss incurred due to unlawful methods defined in the law. Specifically, individuals who buy goods or services for personal use can sue for actual damages or a minimum of $100 if they suffer loss due to deceptive practices. The "catchall" provision of the UTPCPL includes liability for conduct that creates confusion or misunderstanding, which can be either fraudulent or negligent. In a case initiated by the Kirwins against Sussman, the court examined whether the Kirwins demonstrated justifiable reliance on a deceptive advertisement that misrepresented the vehicle's price. The court noted that, despite the UTPCPL's broadened applicability since 1996, plaintiffs must still prove justifiable reliance and causation. The Kirwins cited Grimes v. Enterprise, which suggested that reliance might not need to be proven under the catchall provision for deceptive conduct. However, this ruling was not fully upheld due to a lack of evidence of ascertainable loss. The court emphasized that justifiable reliance is a required element of deceptive conduct claims under the UTPCPL. In this case, the Kirwins did not provide sufficient evidence of reliance; Thomas Kirwin's deposition revealed he was aware of the price discrepancy before finalizing the purchase and chose to proceed despite this knowledge. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of their UTPCPL claim, as they failed to establish a prima facie case of justifiable reliance. The Kirwins did not present evidence of other misleading advertisements from Sussman, limiting the scope of their allegations. The judgment was affirmed, with no findings about other potential deceptive practices at the dealership.