602 Pa. 346, 980 A.2d 502 (2009)). To ascertain the plaintiffs theory of liability, courts must examine the averments in the complaint. Id. at 105. ¶ 12 Regarding professional malpractice: Our Supreme Court retained privity (an attorney-client or analogous professional relationship, or a specific undertaking) as an element of proof necessary to maintain an action in negligence for professional malpractice. The only exception being a narrow class of third party beneficiaries under Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 302 where the intent to benefit is clear and the promisee (testator) is unable to enforce the contract. Cost v. Cost, 450 Pa.Super. 685, 677 A.2d 1250, 1253-54 (1996), appeal denied, 547 Pa. 727, 689 A.2d 233 (1997) (internal citations omitted). Accord Krauss, supra at 308 (<HOLDING>). If a complaint does not set forth a cause of
holding that plaintiffs could not sue attorneys for legal malpractice so long as underlying medical malpractice action out of which legal malpractice claim arose was still pending on appeal holding claims against attorney for legal malpractice must be asserted by attorneys actual client absent limited exception holding that there would be no exception to american rule on attorney fees for legal malpractice claims holding that attorneys sued for malpractice were entitled to assert thirdparty complaint for contribution and indemnification against subsequent attorney hired by client holding that debtors have no right to jury trial on malpractice claims against their attorneys