Fourth Circuit: Phillip Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc.


The class claim is sufficiently predominant, since all of the customers--even those who benefited--paid the fee; determining individual statute of limitations issues would be merely ministerial; defendant's general concealment underlay each instance of fraudulent inducement; appraisal variance would be merely ministerial; and the statutory damages are uniform.

Although the agreement's reference to a timely appraisal was insufficient guarantee to create a contract, the taking of a security deposit for the purposes of verifying identity and credit formed a binding contract.

Under the state's law, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is relevant only to the analysis of actual breach of contract.

Concealment of potential improper contact with appraisers was sufficiently proximate to the formation of the agreement with the homeowners to qualify as unconscionable inducement under the state's statute.

Dissent:

Practice was customary in the industry; no actual inducement; communications with the appraiser did not breach the agreement to provide an appraisal.


Phillip Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc.