The gist of the action doctrine barred the plaintiff’s tort claim against the insurer.

The plaintiff submitted a claim for uninsured motorist benefits and income loss benefits under the Personal Injury Protection coverage of the policy. When the insurer ceased paying the $2,500 per month benefit, the plaintiff sued and alleged, among other claims, intentional misrepresentation. The insurer argued that the intentional misrepresentation claim was barred by the gist of the action doctrine. The doctrine bars a plaintiff from recasting his breach of contract claim as a tort claim. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania agreed and dismissed the count relating to intentional misrepresentation.

Case Law Alert, 1st Qtr 2012