Sometimes life imitates art. The Disney animated film “Encanto” centers around a family, the Madrigals. They live in a magical house that bestows upon each child in the family a unique gift, except the protagonist, Mirabel. Mirabel soon discovers that the magic surrounding the house is in danger and seeks out the assistance of her ostracized uncle, Bruno. The Madrigal family avoided mention of Bruno for 10 years. Mirabel knew the basics: he could predict the future. But the contours of his powers, the details of his disappearance, the mere mention of his name—all forbidden topics of discussion. The family even wrote a Grammy-nominated song about it, “We Don’t Talk About Bruno.”

Likewise, for nearly a decade, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined to further discuss its holding in Bruno v. Erie Insurance, 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014), despite numerous calls for clarification. As a result, uncertainty remains regarding the “gist of the action” doctrine in Pennsylvania. Therefore, just like the Madrigal family, there is one question permeating the legal community: is it finally time to talk about Bruno?

Contract v. Tort Distinction