their casket purchase to a SCI or Alderwoods funeral home in the past. The fact that death is inevitable is not sufficient to establish a real and immediate threat of future harm. Appellants did not cite any evidence that any of the eleven named individuals are even charged with the task of purchasing a casket for a friend or relative upon his or her passing. “Such ‘some day’ intentions — without any description of concrete plans, or indeed any specification of when the some day will be — do not support a finding of the ‘actual or imminent’ injury that our cases require.” Summers, 555 U.S. at 496, 129 S.Ct. 1142 (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)); see also In re N.J. Title Ins. Litig., 683 F.3d 451, 461 (3d Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); McCray v. Fid. Nat’l Title Ins. Co., 682 F.3d
holding that the insurer had no duty to defend the insured because the allegations of the initial complaint did not allege facts which would bring the case within the coverage of the title insurance policy holding that consumer plaintiffs failed to establish standing for antitrust injunction claim alleging anticompetitive conduct in the setting of title insurance rates where inter alia they did not allege any plans to buy title insurance in the future thus failing to raise their claims above the speculative level holding that in order for claim to be within scope of coverage of title insurance policy it must be specifically provided for holding that additional free title insurance provided a benefit to class members regardless of whether they made a claim on that insurance holding that notice and a hearing were required before the commissioner of insurance could require an insurance company to change its definition of at fault in order to secure approval of an increase in insurance rates