breach of fiduciary duty claim in Pennsylvania

2018With respect to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, “a confidential relationship and the resulting fiduciary duty may attach wherever one occupies toward another such a position of advisor or counsellor as reasonably to inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other’s interest.” Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 777 A.2d 95, 101-02 (Pa.Super. 2001), appeal denied, 569 Pa. 714 , 806 A.2d 857 (2002).

2016With respect to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, “a confidential relationship and the resulting fiduciary duty may attach wherever one occupies toward another such a position of advisor or counsellor as reasonably to inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other’s interest.” Basile v. H & R Block, Inc., 777 A.2d 95, 102 (Pa.Super.2001).

2016Bohler-Uddeholm, 247 F.3d at 104-105 .

2016See Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 951 (Pa.Super.2013) (declining to apply the gist of the action doctrine in part because the “alleged representations by [a]ppellees occurred prior [to] the signing of any contract”); Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. *472 Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 104 (3rd Cir.Pa.2001) (concluding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine), 11 cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1162 , 122 S.Ct. 1173 , 152 L.Ed.2d 116 (2002); see also generally Reading Radio, 833 A.2d at 211 (finding breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, inten

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2019Ford, 878 A.2d at 899 (“[a] claim of oppressive conduct, like a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, sounds in equity”) (quotations and citations omitted); Viener, 834 A.2d at 554 (“[a] claim of breach of fiduciary duty sounds in equity”); Wolf v. Fried, 373 A.2d 734 (Pa. 1977) (derivative suit charging corporate directors with breach of fiduciary duty was an equitable action); but see B.G.

2019Ford, 878 A.2d at 899 (“[a] claim of oppressive conduct, like a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, sounds in equity”) (quotations and citations omitted); Viener, 834 A.2d at 554 (“[a] claim of breach of fiduciary duty sounds in equity”); Wolf v. Fried, 373 A.2d 734 (Pa. 1977) (derivative suit charging corporate directors with breach of fiduciary duty was an equitable action); but see B.G.

2019Co., 712 A.2d 273, 278 (Pa. 1998) (characterizing a breach of corporate fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Laurel Road Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Freas, 191 A.3d 938, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort”); see also DAN B.

2019Co., 712 A.2d 273, 278 (Pa. 1998) (characterizing a breach of corporate fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Laurel Road Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Freas, 191 A.3d 938, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort”); see also DAN B.

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2019Co., 712 A.2d 273, 278 (Pa. 1998) (characterizing a breach of corporate fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Laurel Road Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Freas, 191 A.3d 938, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort”); see also DAN B.

2019Co., 712 A.2d 273, 278 (Pa. 1998) (characterizing a breach of corporate fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Laurel Road Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Freas, 191 A.3d 938, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (“a claim for breach of fiduciary duty sounds in tort”); see also DAN B.

2019Balmer & Co. v. Frank Crystal & Co., 148 A.3d 454, 470 (Pa. Super. 2016) (characterizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Drain v. Covenant Life Ins.

2019Balmer & Co. v. Frank Crystal & Co., 148 A.3d 454, 470 (Pa. Super. 2016) (characterizing a breach of fiduciary duty claim as a tort claim); Drain v. Covenant Life Ins.

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2019See Wiseman v. Martorano, 175 A.2d 873, 874-875 (Pa. 1961) (providing the plaintiff with equitable relief for his breach of fiduciary duty claim); Viener, 834 A.2d at 557-558 (the defendant breached his fiduciary duty to, and squeezed-out the plaintiff in, a closely held corporation; we affirmed the trial court’s chosen, equitable remedy, which ordered the defendant’s forced buy-out of the plaintiff’s shares at fair value); Kessler v. Broder, 851 A.2d 944 (Pa. Super. 2004) (affirming the trial court’s issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff and against defendants,

2013THI’s Claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing “A breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by the gist of the action doctrine if the fiduciary duty alleged is grounded in contract obligations.” Alpart v. General Land Partners, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 491, 499 (E.D.

2013“A breach of fiduciary duty claim is barred by the gist of the action doctrine if the fiduciary duty alleged is grounded in contract obligations.” Alpart v. General Land Partners, Inc., 574 F. Supp. 2d 491, 499 (E.D.

2009Gedeon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 410 Pa. 55, 59 , 188 A.2d 320, 322 (1963).

2009Gedeon v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 410 Pa. 55, 59 , 188 A.2d 320, 322 (1963).

2024Snyder v. Crusader Servicing Corp., 231 A.3d 20, 31 (Pa. Super. 2020).

2020Pa. 2018) (“[t]o sustain [a] claim for breach of fiduciary duty,” plaintiff “must demonstrate” that defendant “failed to act in good faith” and for plaintiff’s “sole benefit” and that plaintiff “suffered an injury” as a result).14 With respect to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, a confidential relationship and the resulting fiduciary duty may attach wherever one occupies toward another such a position of advisor or counsellor as reasonably to inspire confidence that he will act in good faith for the other’s interest. . . . ____________________________________________ 14 “[A]lthough we are not

2017See Stephan, supra at 664-65 .

2016See Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 951 (Pa.Super.2013) (declining to apply the gist of the action doctrine in part because the “alleged representations by [a]ppellees occurred prior [to] the signing of any contract”); Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. *472 Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 104 (3rd Cir.Pa.2001) (concluding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine), 11 cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1162 , 122 S.Ct. 1173 , 152 L.Ed.2d 116 (2002); see also generally Reading Radio, 833 A.2d at 211 (finding breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, inten

2016See Guy, supra. Therefore, we conclude the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim as Brychczynski has no standing to maintain this action against Barrett.8 ____________________________________________ 8 Additionally, we note the facts as pleaded in the Complaint are that the Decedent asked Barrett to modify the Trust, which was last modified in 2011, and that the Decedent appointed Barrett as the “Death Trustee” and executor of his estate.

2016See Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 951 (Pa.Super.2013) (declining to apply the gist of the action doctrine in part because the “alleged representations by [a]ppellees occurred prior [to] the signing of any contract”); Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. *472 Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 104 (3rd Cir.Pa.2001) (concluding that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine), 11 cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1162 , 122 S.Ct. 1173 , 152 L.Ed.2d 116 (2002); see also generally Reading Radio, 833 A.2d at 211 (finding breach of fiduciary duty of loyalty, inten

2015Indeed, the Trustees allegations, accepted as true and accorded every possible favorable inference, demonstrate that Fiduciary Trust failed in its duty to act with reasonable diligence with the Trust by obeying unreasonable directions from Ackerman, which resulted in the misappropriation of trust assets.7 See William Stevens, Ltd., 650 N.Y.S.2d at 308 ; Leonard Smith, Inc., 483 N.Y.S.2d at 849 ; see also Takayama v. Schaefer, 669 N.Y.S.2d 656, 659 (N.Y.A.D. 2d Dep’t 1998) (stating that an escrow agent becomes a representative of anyone with a beneficial interest in the trust, and can be held t