WPC 7^Uwu9WJp]oMf@wDUMI*ƺc߫]CڜJMܒhj7aCZUl!00*ꮯR MD TQ6?ۓ+(I`Jܦ)fJW$rar 8D\k#ښtIj/8!n&3 CԗFaMT=o%"3+&'55S.B$m#h qƨpC hCmevJQ\`m$&ڳ^]delMU=-p P{sסX?\Ȕ#eDJR!/p Fd4_Ruޅ0@δWGH3n[: ƴ\n@u< 0Oy~"Xd+;1XEi9wʝ4F Z 0(i  w@  UN U:E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E UB % B D3 0D                                                                                  AO[  0Dp D/ B h&3|x ($ ӀDDeDDӀ XXXXXX   Ad FILED   July13,1999  CecilCrowson,Jr.o AppellateCourt  Clerk (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular,cAZ"Arial Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !    TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7 UXXdXXd7XPYXXXXXPYr*<,(j 8 `@E  tt0"Hrߛ񀀀@j j  INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @>>%ATKNOXVILLE MIKEHARVEY,onbehalfofhimself  )C/ANO.03A019807CV00235   andallotherssimilarlysituated,    )   4    <     )ROANECIRCUIT 4 PlaintiffAppellant, <     )    4    <     )HON.RUSSELLSIMMONS,JR.,v. 4    <     )JUDGE    4    <     )FORDMOTORCREDITCOMPANY,  )    4    <     ) 4 DefendantAppellee.    )  GORDONBALL,Knoxville,forPlaintiffAppellant.STEVEND.LIPSEY,STONE&HINDS,P.C.,Knoxville,andTHOMASM.BYRNEandDANIELH.SCHLUETER,SUTHERLAND,ASBILL&BRENNAN,LLP,Atlanta,forDefendantAppellee.PAULG.SUMMERS,TennesseeAttorneyGeneralandReporter,andTIMOTHYC.PHILLIPS,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,Nashville,AmicusCuriaefortheStateofTennessee.@  OPINIONONPETITIONFORREHEARING  '   4    <      D   Franks,J. 4  PlaintiffhasfiledaPetitionforRehearinginresponseouropinioninHarveyv.FordMotorCreditCo.,1999WL356301(Tenn.App). /'(  4  PlaintiffarguesthattheCourtmisinterpretedtheterm quotedFordMotorCreditRatesinhisAmendedComplaint.Hearguesthattheterm quotedFordMotorCreditRatesreferstothefinalratequotedtotheconsumerbythedealer.InothersectionsoftheAmendedComplaint,theterm quotedratesreferstotheinitialratessetbythedefendantandnottheratesgiventotheconsumer.InanotherportionoftheAmendedCompliant,however,theplaintiffstatesthatthedefendant instructs ;34S and/orpermitsitsdealerstoinformconsumersthattheinterestratequotedtothemisafixedFordMotorCreditrate,wheninfactitisnot. 4  DefendantrespondsthattheAmendedComplaintdoesnotallegethatthedealermadeanymisrepresentationtotheplaintiff.TheAmendedComplaintalleges,however,thatthedealermisrepresentedtotheplaintiffthathewas receivinganapprovedinterestratequotedbyDefendantandthatsuchratewasfixedbyFordMotorCredit...Thus,theAmendedComplaintallegesthatthedealermadeamisrepresentationtoplaintiff.Assuming,arguendo,thattheAmendedComplaint  allegesthatthedefendantsinstructsdealerstomisrepresentthesourceoftheinterestratesquotedtotheconsumer,theComplaintisstilldeficient.Ifthereferenceto dealermanuals,policiesandproceduresissufficienttosatisfytherequirementsofT.R.C.P.9.02,nocauseofactionhasbeenstated,becausethecomplaintfailstoallegeproximatecause. 4  TheTrialCourtheldthat reliancewasarequirementundertheTennesseeConsumerProtectionAct.T.C.A.4718101to121.T.C.A.4718109establishesaprivaterightofactionforanypersonwhosuffersan ascertainableloss...asaresultoftheuseoremploymentbyanotherpersonofanunfairordeceptiveactorpractice...IndeterminingthatreliancewasarequiredelementundertheAct,theTrialCourtrelieduponGanzevoortv.Russell,949S.W.2d293 +$$ (Tenn.1997).InGanzevoort,thisCourthadheldthat relianceisnotapartofthe -&& causeofaction,simplybecausetheActdoesnotrequireit.1995WL623047at*2(Tenn.App.).Wefurthernotedthat thewholetenoroftheactmakesitclearthatthetechnicalrequirementsofacauseofactionforfraudanddeceitarenotapartofthecauseofactionundertheact.Id.TheSupremeCourtaffirmed,butdidnot 5.. specificallyaddresstherelianceissue.TheCourtcitedwithapprovalthedefinitionsof deceptiveactorpracticefoundindecisionsbyIllinoisandVermontcourts. 922 Ganzevoort,949S.W.2dat299(citingConnorv.MerrillLynchRealty,Inc.,581  N.E.2d196(Ill.Ct.App.1991);Bissonv.Ward,628A.2d1256(Vt.1993).    4  UndertheIllinoisConsumerFraudAct,plaintiffsarenotrequiredtoproveactualreliance.Connickv.SuzukiMotorCo.,675N.E.2d584(Ill.1996).   VermontsConsumerFraudAct,however,grantsacauseofactiontoconsumerswhocontractforgoodsorservices inrelianceuponfalseorfraudulentrepresentations.Vt.Stat.Ann.tit.9,2461(b)(1997). 4  TheTennesseeConsumerProtectionActdoesnotrequirereliance.WeelecttofollowthisCourtsreasoninginGanzevoort,althoughnotspecifically H@ addressedbytheSupremeCourt.First,theActcontainsnoexpressrequirementofreliance.Second,theActistobeliberallyconstruedtoprotectconsumers.Morrisv. XP MacksUsedCars,824S.W.2d538(Tenn.1992).Finally,thisCourthasnotedthat `X stateconsumerprotectionactsgenerallydonotrequirereliance.SeeLienv.Couch, h` 1998WL848101(Tenn.App.),appealdenied,May10,1999. p!h  4  AlthoughtheActdoesnotrequirereliance,plaintiffsisarerequiredtoshowthatthedefendantswrongfulconductproximatelycausedtheirinjury.T.C.A.47-18109establishesaprivaterightofactionforanypersonwhosuffersan ascertainableloss...asaresultoftheuseoremploymentbyanotherpersonofanunfairordeceptiveactorpractice...InStracenerv.Swindle,wecitedthislanguage +$$ andnoted: [s]imilarly,proximatecausationmustbeprovenwhethertheclaimisbasedonfraud...oronmerenegligence...1995WL414873at*3(Tenn.App.1995).InConnick,thecourtnotedthatwhileplaintiffsneednotprovereliance,they 1** mustshowthatthedefendantsconductproximatelycausedtheinjury.675N.E.2d584(Ill.1996).SeealsoCarrollv.CellcoPartnership,713A.2d509,515(N.J. 5.. Super.Ct.App.Div.,1998)( AlthoughplaintiffsneednotproverelianceundertheConsumerFraudAct,theymustshowanascertainablelossasaresultofdefendants 922 conductandacausalrelationship.). 4  Inthiscase,theAmendedComplaintdoesnotallegeacasualconnectionbetweenthedefendantsconductandanyinjurysufferedbytheplaintiff.AlthoughtheAmendedComplaintallegesthattheplaintiffpaidhigherinterestratesbyfinancingthroughthedealerandnotdirectlywiththedefendant,thereisnoallegationthatthedefendantmadedirectloanstothepublic.AlthoughtheAmendedComplaintallegesthattheplaintiffwas requiredtopayhiddenfees,hewasclearlyinformedofthetotalinterestrate,whichhewasfreetoacceptorreject.Regardlessofhowpaymentwasallocatedbetweenthedealeranddefendant,theplaintiffwasawareofwhathisoverallpaymentandtotalinterestratewouldbe.Additionally,theplaintiffdoesnotallegethathewouldhaverefusedtoengageinthetransactionhadheknownthatsomeportionofhispaymentwouldgotothedealer.Theplaintiffwasalsofreetoseekfinancingfromothersources.Accordingly,theAmendedcomplaintdoesnotallegeacauseofactionundertheConsumerProtectionAct. 4  Finally,plaintiffarguestheCourterredindismissingtheportionofhisAmendedComplaintaddressingthedefendantsadvertising.Theplaintiffarguesthathecouldnothavebelievedtheratequotedtohimbythedealerwasthedefendantsdirectrateunlesshehadseenadvertisementsregardingthedefendantsrates.TheAmendedComplaintalleges,however,thatthedealertoldtheplaintiffthathewasreceivingthedefendantsfixedrate.Thus,itwasnotnecessaryfortheplaintifftohaveseenanyadvertisementtothateffect.Asnoted,iftheplaintiffhadseenthedefendantsadvertising,hewouldhavebeenawareofthedisparitybetweentherateadvertisedandtheratehereceived.TheAmendedComplaintdoesnotallegethatplaintiffsawanyofdefendantsadvertisements.Accordingly,theallegationsconcerningdefendantsadvertisingfailtostateaclaim. 4  WedenythePetitiontoReconsiderwiththeadditionalcostassessedto 922 theappellant.   ̛@+ D     4    <     __________________________    4    <     HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________HoustonM.Goddard,P.J.___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.WilliamH.Inman,Sr.J.