Poteat v. Asteak, 2024 Pa. Super. LEXIS 99, 2024 WL 1202926 (March 21, 2024) (Dubow, J.), is yet another example of the blurring of the line between contract and negligence actions under the guise of the gist of the action doctrine.
Typically, in reviewing causes of action, the courts have been advised to look to the “gist” of the action, rather than how the matter is characterized by the parties. The gist of the action doctrine is generally “designed to maintain the conceptual distinction between breach of contract claims and tort claims. As a practical matter, the doctrine precludes plaintiffs from re-casting ordinary breach of contract claims into a tort claim.” See Mirizio v. Joseph, 4 A.3d 1073, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2010).
