Bruno, D., Aplts. v. Erie Insurance
106 A.3d 48
| Pa. | 2014Background
- The Brunos purchased a home insured by Erie; their policy included a mold endorsement covering testing, remediation and up to $5,000 for mold-related loss.
- During basement renovations in Oct 2007 the Brunos discovered black mold; Erie’s adjuster and an engineer retained by Erie (Rudick) inspected and told the Brunos the mold was harmless and they should continue renovations.
- Relying on that advice, the Brunos continued work; later testing (paid for by the Brunos) showed toxic mold and family members developed serious respiratory illness; the house was ultimately demolished.
- The Brunos sued Erie (negligence) and Rudick (professional negligence). The trial court sustained Erie’s demurrer under the “gist of the action” doctrine and dismissed Rudick’s claim for failure to file a certificate of merit. The Superior Court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether the gist doctrine barred the negligence claim against Erie and (2) whether Pa.R.C.P. 1042.1/1042.3 required a certificate of merit from non-clients/patients suing a licensed professional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bruno) | Defendant's Argument (Erie / Rudick) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the gist of the action doctrine bars the negligence claim against Erie for agent/engineer statements that mold was harmless | The negligence claim is based on independent, gratuitous misstatements (outside the contract) that falsely minimized toxicity and induced continued renovation and injury | Erie: duties arise from the insurance contract; tort claims about claim handling are really contract claims and should be barred to prevent artful pleading | Held: Not barred. Court applied duty-source test: allegations implicate a general social duty (not a contractual promise) — negligence claim may proceed |
| Whether Rule 1042.1/1042.3 requires a certificate of merit from non-clients/patients suing a licensed professional (Rudick) | Rule 1042.1 limits the chapter to claims "by or on behalf of a patient or client"; Brunos were neither patients nor clients of Rudick, so no certificate required | Rudick: purpose of the rule (weed out meritless malpractice claims) supports requiring certificates from third parties; not requiring one leads to absurdity and inconsistent treatment | Held: No certificate required. The 2008 amendment to Rule 1042.1 narrowed scope to patient/client; Brunos were not Rudick’s clients or patients, so Rule 1042.3 did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilt-Rite Contractors v. Architectural Studio, 581 Pa. 454, 866 A.2d 270 (Pa. 2005) (recognized negligence claims against professionals by non‑clients under certain circumstances)
- D'Ambrosio v. Penn. Nat'l Ins. Co., 494 Pa. 501, 431 A.2d 966 (Pa. 1981) (refused to create a common-law tort for insurer bad-faith handling of claims)
- Bash v. Bell Tel., 411 Pa.Super. 347, 601 A.2d 825 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992) (applied source‑of‑duty test to distinguish contract and tort claims)
- eToll Inc. v. Elias/Savion Adver., 811 A.2d 10 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) (examined whether tort and contract claims are "inextricably intertwined")
- Reitmeyer v. Sprecher, 431 Pa. 284, 243 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1968) (recognized tort recovery for landlord’s negligent breach of promise to repair causing injury)
- Homey v. Nixon, 213 Pa. 20, 61 A. 1088 (Pa. 1905) (refused tort recovery for mere breach of ticket/sale contract; duty was contractual)
- Ash v. Continental Ins. Co., 593 Pa. 523, 932 A.2d 877 (Pa. 2007) (distinguished statutory/extra‑contractual insurer duties as torts)
- Evans v. Otis Elevator Co., 403 Pa. 13, 168 A.2d 573 (Pa. 1961) (recognized general duty to perform contractual undertakings so as not to injure third parties)