embodied by the law of torts.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion that “this dispute arises from the allocation of maintenance duties as set forth in the lease[,]” Dupuis’s liability does not stem from any particular provision of the lease agreement. T.C.O., 6/01/06, at 3. Rather, Dupuis’s liability originates from her awareness of, and promise to rectify, the water infiltration problem. This, in turn, created a legal duty on the part of Dupuis to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling her promise and correcting the disrepair — a duty that is separate and distinct from her contractual duty/promise to simply repair the water infiltration. See Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. Ellwood Group, Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 104-05 (3d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). As such, Reed’s negligence claim under
holding that a plaintiff seeking individual relief under erisa  502a3 under a breach of fiduciary duty theory did not have a cause of action when the alleged breach of fiduciary duty was a failure to distribute benefits in accordance with the plan holding that missouri law applied to the plaintiffs breach of fiduciary duty claim because it is corporate law that defines the contours of that duty holding a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty will not lie where the claim of breach is dependent upon the existence of a contractual relationship between the parties holding that minority partners claim against the majority partner for breach of fiduciary duty was not barred under the gist of the action doctrine because pennsylvania law imposes a fiduciary duty that is separate and distinct from the particular contractual obligations contained in the joint venture agreement holding that under texas law limited partner could not bring breach of fiduciary duty claims without the partnership because the partners claims would be indirect and duplicative of the partnerships claims