.

Defense Digest

Shoddy Home-Improvement Contracting? Grounds for Recovering Treble Damages and Attorneys Fees under Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act and Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023

June 1, 2023

by Robert A. Morton IV

Key Points:

  • Trial courts are determined to protect the individual consumer from bad-acting contractors, including with the award of treble damages and attorneys fees under the HICPA and URPCPL.
  • Home improvement contractors must ensure that they are familiar with the provisions of both HICPA and the UTPCPL and that they perform their home improvement renovations in a workmanlike manner.

As home improvement projects have sky-rocketed in Pennsylvania in the COVID and post-COVID era, thanks to the continued “work from home” model or some form thereof, so have claims against home improvement contractors under both the Pennsylvania Home Improvement Consumer Protection Act, otherwise known as HICPA, and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL).

HICPA arose, at least in part, out of the need to protect consumers from unscrupulous home improvement contractors. To combat the deceptive practices of such actors, HICPA places certain requirements on these contractors, including that they register with the state, and dictates the terms and provisions which must be included in a contract with a homeowner, while also precluding certain terms and provisions that would act to limit a homeowner’s right to recover against such contractors.

While the aim is to protect consumers, both HICPA’s and UTPCPL’s requirements can sometimes appear arbitrary and onerous to home improvement contractors. However, contractors must ensure compliance with the statutes, as violations of HICPA and/or UTPCPL, even for seemingly minor technical violations, can form the basis of an award of treble damages or attorneys fees. This article addresses certain scenarios under HICPA and the UTPCPL where Pennsylvania Courts have awarded treble damages or attorney fees for violations of the statutes.

Per the UTPCPL, “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. 73 P.S. § 201-3. “Unfair methods of competition” and “unfair or deceptive acts or practices” include, under § 201-2(4)(xvi), “making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing.” Additionally, any violation of the HICPA is deemed a violation of the UTPCPL. 73 P.S. § 517.10. 

Any person who purchases services for personal, family, or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of an unlawful act under UTPCPL may bring a private action to recover actual damages. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a). Additionally, the court may, in its discretion, award up to three times the actual damages sustained and may provide such additional relief as it deems necessary or proper. 

A trial court has broad discretion to award treble damages for any violation of the UTPCPL, including violations of the HICPA. Johnson v. Hyundai Motor America, 698 A.2d 631, 639-640 (Pa. Super. 1997). An abuse of discretion may not be found merely because an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion, but requires manifest unreasonableness, or partiality, or ill-will, or such lack of support so as to be clearly erroneous. Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 839 A.2d 1038, 1046 (Pa. 2003). The court’s discretion as to treble damages under the UTPCPL should not be closely constrained by the common-law requirements associated with the award of punitive damages. Schwartz v. Rockey, 932 A.2d 885, 898 (Pa. 2007). Nevertheless, the discretion of courts of original jurisdiction is not limitless, and awards of treble damages may be reviewed by the appellate courts for rationality. Courts of original jurisdiction should focus on the presence of intentional or reckless, wrongful conduct as to which an award of treble damages would be consistent with, and in furtherance of, the remedial purposes of the UTPCPL. 

In actions for violations for the UTPCPL, the court may award to the plaintiff, in addition to other relief, costs and reasonable attorneys fees. 73 P.S. § 201-9.2(a). The trial court has discretion in awarding attorneys fees, and an appellate court will not disturb such an award unless the trial court abuses that discretion. Skurnowicz v. Lucci, 798 A.2d 788, 796 (Pa. Super. 2002) (superseded on other grounds). In exercising its discretion, the trial court must consider: 

(1) the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite properly to conduct the case; (2) the customary charges of the members of the bar for similar services; (3) the amount involved in the controversy and the benefits resulting to the client or clients from the services, and (4) the contingency or certainty of the compensation.

Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022, 1030-31 (Pa. Super. 2005).

The trial court must link the fee award to the amount of damages the plaintiff sustained under the UTPCPL and eliminate from the award of attorneys fees the efforts of counsel to recover on non-UTPCPL theories. Courts have acknowledged the difficulty of parsing out the time between UTPCPL claims and other causes of action where plaintiffs are proceeding on multiple theories of relief. See e.g. Krishnan v. Culter Group, Inc., 171 A.3d 856 (Pa. Super. 2017); Boehm v. Riversource Life Inc. Co., 117 A.3d 308 (Pa. Super. 2015).

In addition, a strict liability standard is now applied to all claims brought under the “catch-all” provision of the UTPCPL for conduct that has the potential to deceive a consumer. As a result, courts may impose an award of treble damages and attorneys fees for such a violation even without considering the state of mind of the actor.

The following summarizes a few factual scenarios that have warranted awards of treble damages or attorneys fees in UTPCPL and/or HICPA cases.

In Brandt v. Master Force Construction Corp., 236 A.3d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2020), the homeowners contracted with a home improvement contractor to replace a roof. However, the roof leaked after replacement. After the contractor claimed to have fixed the leak, the leaks persisted, and the homeowners decided to hire another contractor to actually fix the leaky roof. The Pennsylvania Superior Court ultimately upheld a trial court’s award of treble damages and attorneys fees because the court applied the Neal factors and only awarded fees and expenses for which counsel had prepared invoices and which Plaintiffs had actually paid.

In Bennett v. A.T. Masterpiece Homes at Broadsprings, LLC, 40 A.3d 145 (Pa. Super. 2012), the buyers of a newly-constructed home were guaranteed by the builders that the roof, flooring, and foundational issues would be fixed, but issues persisted after construction was completed. The trial court ultimately awarded the plaintiffs double damages, and the appellate court found such award was soundly within the discretion of the trial court based on violation of the UTPCPL. 

In Krishnan, supra, home purchasers discovered chronic water infiltration issues due to construction failures committed by the defendant home builder. The trial court awarded attorneys fees, expert fees, and related costs. All were upheld.

In short, it is apparent that trial courts are determined to protect the individual consumer from bad-acting contractors, including with the award of treble damages and attorneys fees. Appellate courts will uphold such awards absent a significant overreach by the trial court. With that in mind, home improvement contractors must ensure that they are familiar with the provisions of both HICPA and the UTPCPL and that they perform their home improvement renovations in a workmanlike manner. 

 

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2023, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2023 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Portrait of Carolyn Schweizer, with text below: Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

News

Marshall Dennehey Names Carolyn Schweizer New Philadelphia Office Managing Attorney

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

News

Marshall Dennehey Announces 2026 Ohio Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

Result

Summary Judgment Secured, Preserving $750,000 in Coverage for Insured in Major Trucking Liability Dispute

Ray Freudiger and Michael A. Roberts (both of Cincinnati) successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their client in a coverage dispute arising from a May 19, 2022, motor vehicle accident. A permissive driver operated a box truck for an interstate trucking company and caused severe injuries to two tort victims. Prior to the accident, the insured had procured a commercial auto policy for the trucking company with stated limits of $1,000,000. Following the accident, the insurer initiated a declaratory judgment action asserting that only reduced bodily injury limits of $25,000/$50,000 applied and later counterclaimed, alleging it would not have insured the driver had he been properly submitted for approval under the policy. After extensive discovery, briefing, and oral argument, the court rejected the insurer’s attempt to shift responsibility for the $750,000 in coverage it was legally required to provide for permissive drivers under Ohio law, granting summary judgment in favor of the insured and preserving $750,000 in liability exposure.

Thought Leadership

New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Legislation Updates

Since June 1, 2026, there have been no new New Jersey workers’ compensation related cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts. As such, below will highlight any new legislative updates since February. A1023 | S3984 - Medical Use of Cannabis Under Certain Circumstances This requires workers’ compensation, PIP, and health insurance coverage for the medical use of cannabis under certain circumstances. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee. It was also introduced on March 19, 2026 and referred to the Senate Commerce Committee. A1045  - Certain Injuries to Volunteer and Professional Public Safety and Law Enforcement Personnel This revises workers’ compensation coverage for certain injuries to volunteer and professional public safety and law enforcement personnel. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1384 | S2757 - Reduce Statute of Limitations in Medical Fee Disputes This reduces statute of limitations from six years to two years in medical fee disputes in workers’ compensation matters. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A1870 | S1379 - Workers' Compensation Benefits For Certain Workers Due to September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks This provides workers’ compensation benefits for certain public safety workers who developed illness or injury as result of responding to September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On February 5, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. A2779 | S1521 - Excludes Certain Illegal Aliens This excludes certain illegal aliens from workers’ compensation and temporary disability benefits. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A2792 | S1555 -  Prevent Intoxicated Employees from Workers’ Compensation This prevents intoxicated employees from receiving workers’ compensation. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3167 | S2372 - Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirements for Certain Corporations and Partnerships This concerns workers’ compensation insurance requirements for certain corporations and partnerships. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. A3548 | S3571 – Maximum Benefits for Certain Volunteers This provides certain volunteer and other workers with maximum compensation benefit for workers' compensation claim regardless of outside employment. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. On March 2, 2026, it was reported from the Senate Committee, 2nd Reading, and referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. It was also introduced on the same day and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly State and Local Government Committee. A3724 - Personal Liability to Employer Officers for Failure to Pay for Coverage This provides personal liability for owner, executive officer, or executive director of employer for failure to pay for workers' compensation coverage. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. On May 7, 2026, it was reported and referred to Assembly Judiciary Committee. A4617  - Certain Workers' Compensation Supplemental Benefits and Funding Method This concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits and funding method. For a permanently and totally disabled worker or surviving dependents after December 31, 1979, with some exceptions, this bill provides for an annual cost of living adjustment in the weekly workers’ compensation benefit rate. It was introduced on March 10, 2026 and referred to the Assembly Labor Committee. S241 - Inclusion in Database of Appointed Officials This requires that workers’ compensation judges and administrative law judges be included in database of appointed officials. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 to the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee. S2290 -  Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 72. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. S3144 - Testimony in Workers’ Compensation This concerns submission of testimony in workers’ compensation claims. It was introduced on January 13, 2026 and referred to the Senate Labor Committee. S3342  - Increase Mandatory Retirement Age This increases statutory mandatory retirement age for Supreme Court Justices, Superior Court Judges, Tax Court Judges, Administrative Law Judges, and Workers’ Compensation Judges from 70 to 75. It was introduced on February 5, 2026 and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thought Leadership

Appellate Court Rejects Horizontal Immunity Defense to Company Not Acting as Statutory Subcontractor

The First District Court of Appeal held that a property management company was not entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in a negligence action brought by an employee of another company working on the property. The claimant was injured while servicing a swimming pool at an apartment complex. His employer had contracted with the property owner to maintain the pool. Following the accident, the claimant received workers' compensation benefits through his employer’s carrier. The claimant subsequently filed a negligence action against the property management company, alleging that it failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and failed to warn him of a dangerous condition that caused his injuries. The property management company had been retained by the property owner to maintain the complex in good operating condition and to perform routine maintenance and repair work. The property management company argued that it was immune from suit under section 440.10(1)(e) of Florida’s Workers’ Compensation Law. That provision grants immunity to a subcontractor providing services in conjunction with a contractor on the same project or contract work from civil actions brought by employees of another subcontractor, subject to limited exceptions. According to the property management company, it qualified as a subcontractor working on the same project as the claimant’s employer and was therefore entitled to horizontal immunity. The trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in its favor. On appeal, however, the claimant argued, and the appellate court agreed, that horizontal immunity applies only when a contractor has sublet work arising from a contractual obligation owed to a third party. The court noted that prior decisions consistently held that an entity acting solely on its own behalf as the owner of property, rather than pursuant to a contract with a third party, is not a “contractor” under section 440.10(1), even when it hires other companies to perform work on the property. In Teed, the property management company could not establish that the property owner had a primary contractual obligation to a third party to maintain either the apartment complex or the swimming pool, which it then delegated to the claimant’s employer or the property management company. As a result, the property owner did not qualify as a statutory contractor, and the property management company was not a subcontractor entitled to horizontal immunity under section 440.10(1)(e). The First District therefore reversed the lower court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings on the claimant’s negligence claim.

empty courtroom photo

Result

Summary Judgment Secured for Life Insurance Agent

Event

Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026

On August 21, 2026, Casey will serve as a panelist for the live webcast program, “Pennsylvania Appellate Update 2025-2026” presented by the Appellate Advocacy Committee of the Pennsylvania Bar Association and Pennsylvania Bar Institute. The program is divided into three parts—Criminal, Civil, and Administrative. Casey will serve as a panelist for the Civil portion, along with Christina McKinley of Blank Rome, Ben Baer of Injury Law Partners, John Masslon of Keller Postman, Jonathan Bruno of Bruno Litigation LLC, and moderator, Ezza Ahmed of Buchanan Ingersoll.  Registration and more information: https://www.pbi.org/product/pennsylvania-appellate-update-2025-2026/

Jason Banonis Holds PDI Attorney of the Year Award with the PDI President

News

Jason Banonis Named Attorney of the Year by the Pennsylvania Defense Institute

blue facade of a hospital sign against blue sky

Result

Defense Verdict in Complex Medical Malpractice Trial

Thought Leadership

Commonwealth Court Holds That a Claimant Who Was Struck By a Car While Crossing the Street During an Unpaid Break Was In the Course and Scope of Employment

This case involved a claim petition filed by a claimant who sustained injuries after being struck by a vehicle while crossing the street in front of the employer’s premises. The employer denied the claim based on course and scope, as the accident occurred during one of two mandatory fifteen (15) minute breaks provided to the claimant. The claimant would punch out at the beginning of a break and punch back in when the break was over.  On the date of the incident, the claimant punched out and left the building to get lunch at a restaurant, which required her to cross the employer’s parking lot, and then a public street, where the injury occurred. The Workers Compensation Judge (WCJ) dismissed the petition, noting that that during the two mandatory fifteen-minute breaks per shift allowed by the employer, the claimant was free to leave the employer’s premises, and during breaks, permitted to engage in whatever activity she desired. The WCJ found that at the time of the accident, the claimant was on her own time, in the middle of the street, and going to get lunch.   The claimant filed an appeal with the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Board (Board), and the Board reversed.  According to the Board, the claimant’s location was still on the employer’s premises, as the claimant was taking her customary route while using a reasonable ingress/egress from the employer.  Further, the Board found that the “Personal Comfort Doctrine” applied, as the claimant was on a momentary departure to take care of her personal comfort, within the window of time she was allotted for her break.  The Board remanded the case, and a WCJ granted the claim petition.  The Board affirmed, and the employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Before the Court, the employer argued that the claimant was not in the course and scope of her employment, because the injury did not occur on its premises, and the claimant was outside the bounds of the Personal Comfort Doctrine. The Court, however, rejected these arguments, and dismissed the employer’s appeal.  The Court noted that the break given to the claimant was so cursory, when she set out to relieve her hunger for her own personal comfort,  she remained in the course of her employment when she sustained her injuries.  A Petition for Allowance of Appeal in the Supreme Court has been filed by the Employer, Giant Eagle.