In DeFebo v. Andersen Windows, Inc., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled that the economic loss doctrine applies to intentional fraud claims that are brought under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”).
In his memorandum dismissing the misrepresentation claims brought under the UTPCPL, Judge Baylson wrote: “something like a gathering storm, this is one in an increasing number of cases where the plaintiff attempts to turn straightforward breach of contract and warranty claims into tort claims. Pennsylvania law is not hospitable to such attempts.” DeFebo v. Andersen Wind., No. 09-2993 (Sept. 3, 2009)
The plaintiff in the case was a Pennsylvania resident who, after becoming dissatisfied with his purchase of windows, brought an action against Home Depot and Anderson Windows.
In dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim under the UTPCPL, the court relied upon a 2002 Third Circuit decision (Werwinski, 286 F.3d 661) which held that there was no exception to the economic loss doctrine for intentional tort claims under Pennsylvania law. Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had yet to address the issue, the Third Circuit predicted that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would likely apply the doctrine to intentional fraud claims under the UTPCPL.
Under Pennsylvania law, “the economic loss doctrine provides that ‘no cause of action could be maintained in tort for negligence or strict liability where the only injury was economic loss-that is, loss that is neither physical injury nor damage to tangible property.’”
In justifying its decision, the court explained that it was bound to follow Third Circuit precedent in the absence of a contradictory decision from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.