economic loss doctrine in Pennsylvania

2021Amig, 432 F. Supp. 3d at 488 (footnote omitted); see also Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 985 A.2d 840 , 841 n.3 (Pa. 2009) (“The economic loss doctrine provides, ‘no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.’ Adams v. Copper Beach Townhome C[mtys.], L.P., 816 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Super. 2003).”).

2018Id. at 842 (citing *1054 Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. , 348 Pa.Super. 17 , 501 A.2d 277 (1985), which noted that the roots of the economic loss doctrine were first recognized in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) ).

2019See New York State Elec., supra. Thus, the economic loss doctrine did not bar Appellee’s tort claims.

2011In Pennsylvania, our appellate courts have declared that “the purpose - of the economic loss doctrine, as adopted in Pennsylvania, is maintaining the separate spheres of the law of contract and tort” New York State Electric and Gas Corp. v. Westinghoase, 564 A.2d 919, 925 (Pa. Super 1989).

2021Amig, 432 F. Supp. 3d at 488 (footnote omitted); see also Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 985 A.2d 840 , 841 n.3 (Pa. 2009) (“The economic loss doctrine provides, ‘no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.’ Adams v. Copper Beach Townhome C[mtys.], L.P., 816 A.2d 301, 305 (Pa. Super. 2003).”).

2018Specifically, UPMC argued that no cause of action exists for negligence because Employees did not allege any physical injury or property damage and, under the economic loss doctrine, "no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage." UPMC's Preliminary *1040 Objections to Employees' Second Amended Class Action Complaint, 7/16/2014, at ¶¶ 15-17 (quoting Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa. , 604 Pa. 50 , 985 A.2d 840 , 841 n.3 (2009) ).

1996Moreover, in Melvin Spivak v. Berks Ridge Corporation Inc., 402 Pa. Super. 73, 78 , 586 A.2d 402, 405 (1990), cited by defendant, the Superior Court does not state that the economic loss rule precludes a fraud cause of action.

1996Moreover, in Melvin Spivak v. Berks Ridge Corporation Inc., 402 Pa. Super. 73, 78 , 586 A.2d 402, 405 (1990), cited by defendant, the Superior Court does not state that the economic loss rule precludes a fraud cause of action.

2018Id. at 842 (citing *1054 Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. , 348 Pa.Super. 17 , 501 A.2d 277 (1985), which noted that the roots of the economic loss doctrine were first recognized in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) ).

2018Id. at 842 (citing *1054 Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. , 348 Pa.Super. 17 , 501 A.2d 277 (1985), which noted that the roots of the economic loss doctrine were first recognized in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) ).

2015"Our Supreme Court has defined the economic loss doctrine as providing 'no cause of action [] for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage.’ ” Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 951-952 (Pa.Super.2013) (quoting Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 604 Pa. 50 , 985 A.2d 840, 841 (2009)). 3 .

2015The economic loss doctrine, as adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, provides that "no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage." Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 952 (Pa. Super.

2024Moreover, economic losses resulting from negligent misrepresentation are an exception to the economic loss doctrine which provides “that tort law is not intended to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of a breach of duties assumed only by [contractual] agreement.” Bilt-Rite, 866 A.2d at 283-285 (citation and original brackets omitted).

2019Compare LLMD of Michigan, 740 A.2d at 191 (recognizing that witness immunity from civil liability “ensure[s] that the path to the truth is left as free and unobstructed as possible and . . . protect[s] the [integrity of the] judicial process”), and Panitz, 632 A.2d at 564 (“The privilege, thus, serves the salutary purpose of encouraging witnesses to give frank and truthful testimony.”); with Bilt-Rite, 866 A.2d at 283 (describing the rationale of the economic loss doctrine—that tort law protects persons and property from injury and “is not intended to compensate parties for [economic] losses”)

2018Id. at 842 (citing *1054 Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. , 348 Pa.Super. 17 , 501 A.2d 277 (1985), which noted that the roots of the economic loss doctrine were first recognized in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) ).

2018Id. at 842 (citing *1054 Aikens v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co. , 348 Pa.Super. 17 , 501 A.2d 277 (1985), which noted that the roots of the economic loss doctrine were first recognized in Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. Flint , 275 U.S. 303 , 48 S.Ct. 134 , 72 L.Ed. 290 (1927) ).

2019See Ellenbogen v. PNC Bank, 731 A.2d 175 , 188 n.26 (Pa. Super. 1999) (stating that the economic loss doctrine “bar[s] a plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses suffered as a result of a defendant’s negligent or otherwise tortious behavior, absent proof that the defendant’s conduct caused actual physical harm to a plaintiff or his property.”).

2013See, e.g., Debbs v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137 , 164 n. 32 (Pa.Super.2002) (the economic loss doctrine "prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a contract.”); Ellenbogen v. PNC Bank, N.A., 731 A.2d 175 , 188 n. 26 (Pa.Super.1999) (the economic loss doctrine "bar[s] a plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses suffered as a result of a defendant’s negligent or otherwise tortious behavior, absent proof that the defendant’s conduct caused actual physical harm to a plaintiff or his property.”).

2023The Johnsons next claim that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the gist of the action doctrine and barring their product liability claims.4 “Implied warranties are implied by law to protect buyers from loss where goods purchased are below commercial standards.” Barton v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 124 A.3d 349, 357 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2023The Johnsons next claim that the trial court abused its discretion in applying the gist of the action doctrine and barring their product liability claims.4 “Implied warranties are implied by law to protect buyers from loss where goods purchased are below commercial standards.” Barton v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 124 A.3d 349, 357 (Pa. Super. 2015).

2024See generally Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036, 1052 (Pa. 2018). - 27 - J-A04030-23 same count, it is unnecessary for us to separately address whether the economic loss doctrine is also applicable.

2024See generally Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036, 1052 (Pa. 2018). - 27 - J-A04030-23 same count, it is unnecessary for us to separately address whether the economic loss doctrine is also applicable.

2018Id. at 18-20 (citing, inter alia , Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. , 533 F.3d 162 , 178 (3d Cir. 2008) (opining that this Court in Bilt-Rite "simply carved out a narrow exception [to the economic loss doctrine] when losses result from the reliance on the advice of professionals") ).

2017See Sovereign Bank v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 533 F.3d 162, 177-178 (3d Cir. 2008) (holding that the economic loss doctrine barred a negligence claim resulting from a data breach).

2018See, e.g. , Ultramares Corp. v. Touche , 255 N.Y. 170 , 174 N.E. 441 , 444 (1931) (Cardozo, C.J.) (warning against imposing liability "an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class").

2018See, e.g. , Ultramares Corp. v. Touche , 255 N.Y. 170 , 174 N.E. 441 , 444 (1931) (Cardozo, C.J.) (warning against imposing liability "an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class").

2018See generally Snoparsky v. Baer , 439 Pa. 140 , 145-46, 266 A.2d 707 , 710 (1970) (referencing Section 302B favorably). 1 Ultimately, I find that an employer who collects confidential personal and financial information from employees stands in such a special relationship to those employees with respect to that information, and I have no difficulty concluding that such a relationship should give rise to a duty of reasonable care to ensure the maintenance of appropriate confidentiality as against reasonably foreseeable criminal activity. 2 This brings me to the economic loss doctrine.

2018See generally Snoparsky v. Baer , 439 Pa. 140 , 145-46, 266 A.2d 707 , 710 (1970) (referencing Section 302B favorably). 1 Ultimately, I find that an employer who collects confidential personal and financial information from employees stands in such a special relationship to those employees with respect to that information, and I have no difficulty concluding that such a relationship should give rise to a duty of reasonable care to ensure the maintenance of appropriate confidentiality as against reasonably foreseeable criminal activity. 2 This brings me to the economic loss doctrine.

2017See Debbs v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137 , 164 n.32 (Pa. Super. 2002), appeal denied, 829 A.2d 311 (Pa. 2003) (“Generally, the economic loss doctrine prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a contract.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted; emphasis added).

2013See, e.g., Debbs v. Chrysler Corp., 810 A.2d 137 , 164 n. 32 (Pa.Super.2002) (the economic loss doctrine "prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a contract.”); Ellenbogen v. PNC Bank, N.A., 731 A.2d 175 , 188 n. 26 (Pa.Super.1999) (the economic loss doctrine "bar[s] a plaintiff from recovering purely economic losses suffered as a result of a defendant’s negligent or otherwise tortious behavior, absent proof that the defendant’s conduct caused actual physical harm to a plaintiff or his property.”).

2000Co. v. M/T FADI B, 766 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1985) (“where the negligence does not result in physical harm, thereby providing no basis for an independent tort, and the plaintiff suffers only pecuniary loss, he may not recover for the loss of the financial benefits of a contract or prospective trade”); Constar Inc., 101 F. Supp.2d at 322 (“the economic loss doctrine permits recovery in negligence only for damage to prop erty or injury to person”); Margolis v. Jackson, 375 Pa. Super. 182, 185 , 543 A.2d 1238, 1240 (1988) (“[pjurely economical loss, when not accompanied with or occasioned by inj

2000Co. v. M/T FADI B, 766 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1985) (“where the negligence does not result in physical harm, thereby providing no basis for an independent tort, and the plaintiff suffers only pecuniary loss, he may not recover for the loss of the financial benefits of a contract or prospective trade”); Constar Inc., 101 F. Supp.2d at 322 (“the economic loss doctrine permits recovery in negligence only for damage to prop erty or injury to person”); Margolis v. Jackson, 375 Pa. Super. 182, 185 , 543 A.2d 1238, 1240 (1988) (“[pjurely economical loss, when not accompanied with or occasioned by inj

2002For the reasons discussed below, this court finds that the economic loss doctrine does not bar plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim. 11 Recently, the Third Circuit in Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3d Cir. 2002) held that a plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim was barred by the economic loss doctrine.

2002Generally, the economic loss doctrine “prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a contract.” Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (3rd Cir.Pa.2002).

2012Inc., 412 Pa. Super. 67 , 602 A.2d 897 (1991), app. denied, 533 Pa. 601 , 617 A.2d 1275 (1992), the Superior Court stated that “[ajlthough negligence actions pursuant to section 552 may lie where there is loss that is not solely economic,...as this court...indicated in Linde, the economic loss doctrine precludes recovery in negligence actions for injuries which are solely economic.” David Pflumm Paving & Excavating, Inc., 816 A.2d at 1170 .

2012Id., at 1171 (“Because, as explained above, Pflumm’s claims for negligent misrepresentation are solely economic, they are precluded by the economic loss doctrine.”).

1998ISSUE NO. 1 In regards to the case at bar, the economic loss doctrine provides that “negligence and strict liability theories do not apply in an action between commercial enterprises involving a product that malfunctions where the only resulting damage is to the product itself.” REM Coal Co. Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co., 386 Pa. Super. 401, 412-13 , 563 A.2d 128, 133-34 (1989).

1998ISSUE NO. 1 In regards to the case at bar, the economic loss doctrine provides that “negligence and strict liability theories do not apply in an action between commercial enterprises involving a product that malfunctions where the only resulting damage is to the product itself.” REM Coal Co. Inc. v. Clark Equipment Co., 386 Pa. Super. 401, 412-13 , 563 A.2d 128, 133-34 (1989).

2005Palco noted that the economic loss rule reflects the concern that tort law (unlike contract law) is not generally intended to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of a breach of duties which are assumed only by agreement; to recover in tort, there must be a breach of a duty of care imposed by law and a resulting injury. 755 F.Supp. at 1271 .

2005Palco noted that the economic loss rule reflects the concern that tort law (unlike contract law) is not generally intended to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of a breach of duties which are assumed only by agreement; to recover in tort, there must be a breach of a duty of care imposed by law and a resulting injury. 755 F.Supp. at 1271 .

2018Althaus v. Cohen , 562 Pa. 547 , 756 A.2d 1166 (2000). 2 On May 28, 2015, the court sustained UPMC's preliminary objections and dismissed Employees' negligence claim. 3 Relying upon the general description of the economic loss doctrine quoted from Excavation Technologies above, the trial court observed that, while Employees claimed that UPMC owed them a duty of care, the only losses Employees sustained were economic in nature.

2018Althaus v. Cohen , 562 Pa. 547 , 756 A.2d 1166 (2000). 2 On May 28, 2015, the court sustained UPMC's preliminary objections and dismissed Employees' negligence claim. 3 Relying upon the general description of the economic loss doctrine quoted from Excavation Technologies above, the trial court observed that, while Employees claimed that UPMC owed them a duty of care, the only losses Employees sustained were economic in nature.

1995In Jones v. General Motors Corp., 428 Pa. Super. 544 , 631 A.2d 665 (1993), the economic loss rule precluded plaintiffs from recovery under a strict liability theory where their truck, manufactured by General Motors, was destroyed by fire as a result of a malfunction within the vehicle.

1995In Jones v. General Motors Corp., 428 Pa. Super. 544 , 631 A.2d 665 (1993), the economic loss rule precluded plaintiffs from recovery under a strict liability theory where their truck, manufactured by General Motors, was destroyed by fire as a result of a malfunction within the vehicle.

2023See id.