# Bruno, D., Aplts. v. Erie Insurance > Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 15, 2014 · 630 Pa. 79 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805222 ## Case - **Full name:** David BRUNO and Angela Bruno, Husband and Wife and Anthony Gotti Bruno and McKayla Marie Blake, by Their Parents and Legal Guardians, David Bruno and Angela Bruno, Appellants v. ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, Rudick Forensic Engineering, Inc., Theresa Pitcher and Marc Pitcher, Appellees - **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** December 15, 2014 - **Citations:** 630 Pa. 79; 106 A.3d 48; 2014 Pa. LEXIS 3319; 2014 WL 7089987 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eakin - **Judges:** Castille, Saylor, Eakin, Baer, Todd, McCaffery, Stevens, Former - **Cited by:** 364 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805222 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that the gist of the action doctrine did not apply to plaintiff’s negligence claim that was not based on defendant’s alleged failure to meet its contractual obligations under its insurance policy with plaintiffs “to investigate whether mold was present, and also to pay… - explaining that, “[A] negligence claim[, i.e., a claim alleging the breach of a broader social duty arising independently of a contract,] based on the actions of a contracting party in performing contractual obligations is not viewed as an action on the underlying contract its… - holding, “[i]f the facts of a particular claim establish that the duty breached is one created by the parties by the terms of their contract—i.e., a specific promise to do something that a party would not ordinarily have been obligated to do but for the existence of the contra… - explaining that the gist of the action doctrine “provides that an alleged tort claim against a party to a contract, based on the party’s actions undertaken in the course of carrying out a contractual agreement, is barred when the gist or gravamen of the cause of action stated … - holding that where a negligence claim is “not founded on the breach of any of the specific executory promises which comprise the contract, . . . the contract [should be] regarded merely as the vehicle, or mechanism, which established the relationship between the parties, durin… ## Opinion text *124 Justice EAKIN, concurring. I agree in full with the majority’s analysis concerning a certifícate of merit. I also agree the “gist of the action” doctrine does not bar the present action because statements concerning toxicity are outside the scope of the insurance policy, but I write separately to caution against what I deem troublesome language. To the extent the majority is perceived to “paint with a broad brush,” suggesting any negligence claim based on a contracting party’s manner of performance does not arise from the underlying contract, see Majority Op., at 114, 106 A.3d at 69-70, I must disagree. In some cases, such as here, that may be the case. However, synthesizing case law to stand for such a broad pronouncement does not comport with the “gist of the action” doctrine — an inherently circumstantial analysis. See eToll, Inc. v. Elias/Savion Advertising, Inc., 811 A.2d 10, 17 (Pa.Super.2002) (“[Wjhether [a] claim [is] actually barred by the doctrine appears to vary based on the individual circumstances and allegations^]”). Chief Justice CASTILLE joins this concurring opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9805222. Public record. Not legal advice.