This case arose out of a nursing home malpractice claim. The Plaintiff filed claims for both malpractice and breach of contract.
A central issue in the case was to be decided by the court is whether the gist of the action doctrine applied to breach of contract action.
Typically, under the gist of the action doctrine, courts have held that negligence claims cannot be pursued based on facts that confirm that the gist of the action actually involves a breach of contract claim.
In this case, the Superior Court was addressing the opposite situation, that is, whether the gist of the action doctrine prevents a Plaintiff from proceeding on a breach of contract claim that is actually based upon facts that give rise to a negligence claim.
Despite a number of prior cases confirming that the gist of the action doctrine does apply in breach of contract cases, this en banc panel of the Superior Court, after completing an exhaustive review of the gist of the action doctrine concluded that the doctrine does not apply to breach of contact actions.
Rather, the court noted that, under any set of facts, Plaintiff could make claims for both negligence and breach of contact where warranted.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority decision may click this LINK.
The Concurring Opinion by President Judge Lazarus may be viewed HERE.
The Concurring Opinion by Judge Stabile may be viewed HERE.
The Concurring Opinion by Judge King may be viewed HERE.
Source of image: Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on www.pexels.com.