context: In Cohen v. Chicago Title Insurance Co., plaintiff alleged that when she refinanced her home she was charged the initial, basic rate for title insurance, rather than the lower refinance rate, three years after she first purchased title insurance for that home. Judge Sanchez reasoned that "[t]he Legislature knows how to make a remedy exclusive," but, by using the word "may," the Act '"signaled [a] discretionary rather than [a] mandatory act."
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 276 F.3d 160, 168
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that Legislature had not added exclusivity language since the ruling in Pekular
citation_a.sentence: Id. at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36689 at *9; see Pekular v. Eich, 355 Pa.Super. 276, 513 A.2d 427, 430 (Pa.Super.Ct.1986) (holding that UIPA does not give Commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims); see also Highmark, Inc., v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 168 (3d Cir.2001) (stating that Legislature had not added exclusivity language since the ruling in Pekular).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 513 A.2d 427, 430
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that UIPA does not give Commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims
citation_b.sentence: Id. at *2, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 36689 at *9; see Pekular v. Eich, 355 Pa.Super. 276, 513 A.2d 427, 430 (Pa.Super.Ct.1986) (holding that UIPA does not give Commission exclusive power to adjudicate deceptive act claims); see also Highmark, Inc., v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc., 276 F.3d 160, 168 (3d Cir.2001) (stating that Legislature had not added exclusivity language since the ruling in Pekular).