Court Opinion

ID: 9352820
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 21:06:49.399268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:04:01.657626
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                             WESTERN DISTRICT

EARL JOHN DWYER AND CHRISTINE        : No. 209 WAL 2022
DWYER, HUSBAND AND WIFE,             :
                                     :
               Petitioners           : Petition for Allowance of Appeal
                                     : from the Order of the Superior Court
                                     :
          v.                         :
                                     :
                                     :
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL, INC.,          :
AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., :
RIVERSOURCE LIFE INSURANCE           :
COMPANY, JAMES E. ANDERSON, JR.,     :
AND DUANE DANIELS,                   :
                                     :
               Respondents           :

                                       ORDER
PER CURIAM

      AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioner, are:

      (1)    UTPCPL treble damages are remedial. Where intentional misconduct is
             found, the statutory goal of eradicating unfair business practices is
             supported by courts trebling damages. Here, intentional misconduct was
             found, yet the trial court refused to treble damages based upon improper
             consideration of the award of common law punitive damages and statutory
             attorneys’ fees. Did the Superior Court err by affirming the use of these
             improper considerations to replace the award of statutory remedial treble
             damages?

      (2)    Whether the law has been misapplied involves a purely legal question. It is
             reviewed de novo and the scope of review is plenary. Whether an award of
             common law punitive damages and statutory attorneys’ fees can replace an
             award of remedial treble damages under the UTPCPL is a question of law.
             Did the Superior Court err by applying an abuse of discretion standard to
             the question of law instead of a de novo standard?