The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial, 2024 Pa. LEXIS 608, 313 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2024), continues a recent trend of promoting the broad interpretation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (CPL) in order to fulfill its remedial purpose. Rebuking the more restrictive viewpoints of the Superior and trial courts, the high court found that the availability of treble damages is wholly independent of any entitlement to punitive damages, and must be considered by the trial court without regard to a punitive damages award on related common-law claims.
In Dwyer, a trial jury returned a verdict in favor of Earl John and Christine Dwyer against Ameriprise Financial, Inc., on common-law claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. The jury found Ameriprise’s conduct to have been outrageous, such that the Dwyers were entitled to punitive damages. Premised upon the same conduct, the trial court decided that Ameriprise also had violated Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. 73 P.S. Sections 201-1 – 201-10. The CPL authorizes the trial court to award, in its discretion, “up to three times the actual damages sustained.” The trial court declined to make such an award, opining that treble damages under the CPL would be duplicative of the punitive damages awarded by the jury on the common-law claims. The Superior Court affirmed, viewing the trial court’s decision as a permissible exercise of its discretion.
