UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT __________

No. 20-2109 __________

LISA EARL, Appellant

v.

NVR, INC., trading as HEARTLAND HOMES OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (District Court No. 2:20-cv-00505) District Judge: Honorable Arthur J. Schwab ______________

Argued: January 29, 2021 ______________

Before: RESTREPO, BIBAS, and PORTER, Circuit Judges

(Filed: March 5, 2021) Jordan Lee Strassburger [ARGUED] Strassburger McKenna Gutnick & Gefsky Four Gateway Center, Suite 2200 444 Liberty Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellant Russell D. Giancola [ARGUED] Kathleen A. Gallagher Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP 6 PPG Place, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Counsel for Appellee __________

OPINION OF THE COURT __________

RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.

Appellant Lisa Earl challenges the District Court’s dismissal of her Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“UTPCPL”) claim against Appellee NVR, Inc. (“NVR”) in connection to a dispute over the purchase of a home and its condition. Fol- lowing our holding in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002), the District Court determined that Earl’s claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine as well as the gist of the action doctrine. Rulings by Pennsylvania appellate courts subsequent to Werwinski, however, have cast substantial doubt upon the continuing validity of our prior interpretation of the UTPCPL. We will use this occasion to clarify that Werwinski no longer accurately reflects the state of Pennsylvania law with regard to the economic loss doctrine and the UTPCPL, reverse the District Court’s dismissal of Earl’s claims, and re- mand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2 I. BACKGROUND 1

On July 12, 2012, Earl entered into a Standard Agreement of Sale with NVR for the purchase of a property (the “Home”) in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. NVR was the seller and builder of the Home. Earl had been attracted to the purchase by NVR’s market- ing, describing the Home as one which would contain “quality architecture, timeless de- sign, and beautiful finishes.” While the Home was under construction, Earl and agents of NVR had further conversations about the Home in which NVR made representations about the Home’s construction, condition, and amenities to Earl. These representations included that the Home would be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner; that NVR would remedy any deficiencies encountered by Earl; and that the Home would be constructed in accordance with relevant building codes and standards. The construction of the Home was completed around March 2013, and Earl closed on the Home at this time.

Upon moving into the Home, however, Earl encountered a number of material de- fects in the Home. Earl relayed these defects to NVR, but NVR’s attempts to repair several of the defects were inadequate and in fact exacerbated some of the issues, despite NVR’s assurances that the problems were remedied. A number of the promised conditions and amenities that Earl had relied upon had also not been provided. Earl contends that NVR’s failure to provide the promised conditions and ameniti