Coram Healthcare Corp. v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a fraudulent inducement claim was not covered by a contract’s choice-of-law clause
• explaining that, under Pennsylvania law, recission is not available as a remedy when sought based on fraudulent inducement, a claim barred by the Pennsylvania parol evidence rule
• applying Pennsylvania parol evidence rale to bar a Pennsylvania-law fraudulent inducement claim, even though Delaware law governed the contract
• “The difference between fraud and negligent misrepresentation, namely a state of mind requirement for the fraud claim, does not affect the rationale behind Pennsylvania's parol evidence rule.”
• parol evidence admissible in Delaware fraud in the inducement claims but not in Pennsylvania
• “[u]n-like a claim of breach of contract seeking money damages ... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).