Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law is meant to be read broadly, and an insurance policy purchaser bringing a claim under the law should not necessarily need to prove justifiable reliance on the alleged misrepresentations of her agent, a plaintiffs attorney argued Tuesday in Pittsburgh before the state Supreme Court.

The law’s statutory language provides for different types of unfair and deceptive business practices — some of them based on fraud, some not — and a one-size-fits-all ruling as to justifiable reliance does not comport with the Legislature’s intent in passing the law, Kenneth Behrend of Behrend & Ernsberger in Pittsburgh said he told the justices during oral arguments in Toy v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]