The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently gave consumers a huge win by allowing them to recover both treble damages and punitive damages under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

In Dwyer v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 313 A.3d 969 (2024), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether the award of treble damages under the UTPCPL was duplicative of an award of punitive damages so that a plaintiff could only recover one or the other. Finding the purpose of treble damages differed from the goal of punitive damages, the Court held that a plaintiff was entitled to recover both.

In 1995, Ameriprise fraudulently and negligently induced the Dwyers to pursue a universal whole life insurance policy on the life of Mr. Dwyer. The maturity date of the life insurance policy was 2051, when Mr. Dwyer would be 95 years old. An Ameriprise representative misrepresented that their quarterly premium payments would remain the same for the life of the policy. However, if the Dwyers’ premium payment had remained the same, the policy would have lapsed for insufficient funds in 2020, when Mr. Dwyer was 64 years old.

On August 23, 2007, the Dwyers filed a complaint against Ameriprise asserting claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation and a violation of the UTPCPL based on the misrepresentations. The Dwyers sought compensatory damages of $45,570, representing the return of their premium payments of $14,580 plus six percent interest. They also sought punitive damages.

The jury returned a verdict for the Dwyers on the claims of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that Ameriprise made intentional, fraudulent misrepresentations in the process of the sale of the policy and the Dwyers justifiably relied upon these misrepresentations to their financial detriment. The jury also found that the conduct was outrageous and warranted punitive damages in the amount of $75,000. The trial court found that Ameriprise violated the UTPCPL and awarded the Dwyers $45,570 and counsel fees. The trial court, however, refused to treble the damages under the UTPCPL finding that the punitive damages and counsel fees were sufficient to compensate the Dwyers for the losses caused by Ameriprise and to deter Ameriprise from such similar future conduct.

Ameriprise subsequently moved for an election of remedies, asserting that the Dwyers were required to elect either the common-law verdict or the statutory UTPCPL verdict, but not both, because the two types of damages would serve the same purpose of punishing the wrongdoers. The trial court granted Ameriprise’s motion for election of remedies agreeing that the Dwyers could not recover compensatory damages twice. The trial court found that the treble damages, like punitive damages, have at least a punitive element. Therefore, the trial court did not award treble damages. The Dwyers appealed. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed, permitting the recovery of both treble damages and punitive damages. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached this conclusion finding that the purpose of treble damages under the UTPCPL and punitive damages were different. Under the UTPCPL, the purpose of treble damages is to eradicate unfair consumer practices by encouraging the private enforcement of the Act. By allowing treble damages, the UTPCPL 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 UTPCPL to bring a private action expend their own time and energy to do so. Treble damages are available to compensate the plaintiffs for enforcing the UTPCPL. Without treble damages, many private plaintiffs would have claims too small to justify the burdens of bringing a private action. Thus, the availability of treble damages under the UTPCPL incentivizes the private enforcement of the Act, which serves the overarching legislative goal of eradicating unfair and deceptive trade practices.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are penal in nature and are intended to punish a tort reason and to deter the tort reason and other from similar conduct. Such damages are appropriate “where the defendant’s actions are so outrageous as to demonstrate willful, wonton, or reckless conduct.” The UTPCPL was not enacted to penalize wrongdoers. Thus, it would be unfair to the plaintiffs to eliminate the award of punitive damages when warranted.

Jurisdictions have addressed this issue differently. Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court, in Shrader-Miller v. Miller, 855 A.2d 1139 (2004) held that a plaintiff is precluded from both statutory damages and common law punitive damages where the purposes of each award are essentially the same. Id. at 1146.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals in Rojas v. Reliable Chevrolet (NM), LLC, 2024-NMCA-003, 539 P.3d 1253 (2023) held a bar on the common law punitive damages claim did not preclude the treble damages under the New Mexico Unfair Practice Act since, as the legislature indicated that the two types of damages were mutually exclusive and arose from different sources.

In Andrews v. Mor/Ryde Int’l, Inc., 10 N.E.3d 502 (Ind. 2014) the Supreme Court of Indiana held treble-damage awards as a civil remedy are regarded as distinct from recovery of common law punitive damages, and thus not limited by the Punitive Damages Act, which limited the availability of punitive damages in the State of Indiana. Id. 504-505.

Now in Pennsylvania, a victim of UTPCPL and fraud rising to the award of punitive damages can recover punitive damages, treble the compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees when the wrongful conduct warrants.