claims, Gabriel v. O’Hara, 368 Pa. Super. 383, 534 A.2d 488 (1987), and a two-year statute of limitations to fraud and most other tort claims. 42 Pa.C.S. §5524. Depending on when the defendants’ allegedly improper actions took place, it is conceivable that some class members’ claims could be barred by the appropriate statute of limitations. The court also notes that the plaintiff’s claims had not been certified prior to the presentation of the settlement to the court. Addressing consumer claims such as this one as class actions secures a particular benefit for injured persons for a variety of reasons. However, it is far from certain that the plaintiff would have been able to establish those elements necessary for certification. Cf. Weinberg v. Sun Co., 565 Pa. 612, 777 A.2d 442 (2001) (<HOLDING>); Klemow v. Time Inc., 466 Pa. 189, 197 n.17,
holding that unlawful restraint could not even be an included offense holding that subject matter questions may be but are not necessarily decided before questions of personal jurisdiction holding that private utpcpl claim included individual questions of fact and could not be certified holding that issues of discriminatory intent and actual motivation are questions of fact for the trier of fact holding that private individual could not bring a claim to remove a judges name from the roll of attorneys