A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling in Dwyer v. Ameriprise Financial (Apr. 25, 2024) has introduced a significant shift in construction defect litigation. In a landmark decision, the court has ruled that plaintiffs can now recover both treble damages under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and punitive damages under other common law theories within the same case. This ruling has far-reaching implications, particularly in construction defect cases where UTPCPL claims are frequently asserted against sellers, builders and developers.

Understanding the Double Whammy—Treble and Punitive Damages

Historically, defendants in construction defect cases faced substantial financial risks under the UTPCPL. The law allows plaintiffs to seek treble damages—three times the actual damages sustained as well as attorney fees and costs—and permits recovery for any deceptive conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding to the consumer. It is essentially a strict liability standard where the intent of the defendant does not matter with the subjective interpretation of the consumer holding precedence. The original intent behind this statute, which dates to 1968, was to deter fraudulent, deceptive, or unfair business practices by imposing severe financial penalties to protect consumers. However, the recent ruling further escalates these risks by allowing concurrent recovery of punitive damages through common law claims such as negligence, fraud, or misrepresentation.