On September 26, 2024, in the case Bruno v. Roundhouse Cycles, Inc., 2024 WL 4307525 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 26, 2024), Judge Haines of the Western District of Pennsylvania dismissed a UTPCPL claim brought against a motorcycle dealership for alleged dealer fraud. The claim arose from the plaintiff’s purchase of a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and an accompanying service contract endorsing the motorcycle. The plaintiff alleged that the motorcycle’s engine failed due to a technical error. Reportedly, the plaintiff attempted to have the dealer repair the damage, which the dealer refused to do. Consequently, the plaintiff spent $12,052.22 in repairs and then sued the dealer, alleging unfair trade practices pursuant to the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL). The dealership then moved to dismiss the UTPCPL claim based on the so-called “gist of the action” doctrine.
After reviewing the statute of the “gist of the action” doctrine jurisprudence in Pennsylvania, and including a detailed analysis of the coincidentally titled Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision Bruno v. Erie Insurance Company, 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), the Court granted the dealership’s Motion to Dismiss. First, the Court held that the “gist of the action” doctrine precludes tort claims that are governed by contractual obligations. Second, the Court identified that, despite the liberal reach of the UTPCPL, the alleged wrongdoing here pertained to delivering a defective vehicle and failing to repair the damage. Consequently, the Court held that the “gist of the action” doctrine barred the plaintiff’s UTPCPL claim.
In a footnote, however, the Court cautioned against applying the “gist of the action” doctrine when the contract was “collateral” to the allegations forwarded in the Complaint. Citing Knight v. Springfield Hyundai, 81 A.3d 940, 950-51 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2013), the Court noted that, when the allegations pertained to extra-contractual activity, e.g., advertising or fraudulent inducement, the “gist of the action” doctrine would not preclude damages arising from representations. Nevertheless, the Bruno Court here held that, in this instance, all alleged wrongdoing arose the dealer’s contractual obligations.
The Bruno v. Roundhouse opinion can be found here.
For additional questions, please contact Christopher S. Regan, Esq. and/or Conrad James Benedetto, Esq.
This article was prepared by McCormick & Priore, P.C. to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is in no way intended to provide legal advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of McCormick & Priore, P.C.
