David Bruno and Angela Bruno, Husband and Wife and Anthony Gotti Bruno and McKayla Marie Blake, by Their Parents And…

Summary

The court held that the insureds' negligence claim against the insurer was not barred by the gist of the action doctrine because it alleged breach of an independent social duty not to provide negligent and misleading advice about the danger posed by mold, rather than breach of the insurance policy. It also held that the insureds were not required to file certificates of merit for their professional-negligence claim against the engineering firm because they were neither patients nor clients of that firm. The court reversed the Superior Court's order and remanded for further proceedings, including consideration of the remaining issues concerning the negligence claim. Justice EAKIN, concurring, agreed with the result but cautioned against reading the majority's reasoning as a broad rule that negligence arising during contractual performance is never contractual in nature.