one exception, have emphasized the circumscribed scope of the Rule and its limited application to tort litigation. Certain of these cases have considered the type of action being asserted. See, e.g., Temporaries Incorporated v. Krane, 325 Pa.Super. 103, 472 A.2d 668, 674 (1984)(“While we have found no cases dealing with the application of Rule 238 to an action for tortious interference with contract, the rule itself applies only to certain actions and does not encompass every action.”). Virtually all cases emphasize the narrow breadth of the Rule. See Reliance, supra, at 44 (“The penalty may only be imposed, however, in tort cases. The rule makes no provision for recovery of delay damages in contract cases.”); see also Anchorstar v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 533 Pa. 177, 620 A.2d 1120 (1993)(<HOLDING>); Colodonato v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 504
holding rule not applicable to claims for loss of consortium and citing reliance supra in support thereof holding that a loss of consortium is separate and independent from the primary action recognizing loss of consortium claims holding that wifes recovery for loss of consortium should not be reduced by the proportion of negligence attributable to husband because claim for loss of consortium is independent of the damages claim of the injured spouse recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium