Grode v. Mutual Fire, Marine, & Inland Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that request for \ 'additional damages' \ did \not sufficiently set forth the type of damages [sought] and the legal basis for those damages\
• holding that “gist of the action” doctrine barred claim of fraudulent inducement to form a contract
• concluding that request for “‘additional damages’” did “not sufficiently set forth the type of damages [sought] and the legal basis for those damages”
• refusing to conclude based on preliminary objections that complaint failed to state separate contract and tort claims based on defendant’s alleged failure to perform contractually required administrative and investigative services
• noting case law in support of both lines of reasoning “requir[e] at bottom an analysis of how much the claims in the pleadings relate to the contracts involved”
• noting the “somewhat confused state of Pennsylvania law on this question”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).