at 317 (citing Black’s Law Dictionary 707, 1335 (5th ed.1979)). Congress could have used the term “personal bodily injury” if it wished to limit personal injury tort claims, such as when it drafted Section 522(d)(ll) of the Bankruptcy Code. Von Volkmar, 218 B.R. at 894. Some courts have reached a middle ground between the narrow and expansive views, looking to whether a iness, property, or contract characteristics that would support an argument that this Court has jurisdiction over them. Using the same middle ground approach, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ unfair and deceptive trade practice claim, which is a cause of action based on a statute, is not a personal injury tort claim within the meaning of Section 157(b)(5). See In re Hollida, 212 B.R. 831, 833 (N.D.W.Va.1997) (<HOLDING>); Crossley v. Lieberman, 90 B.R. 682, 693
holding that an embezzlement claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that a libel claim is a personal injury tort claim holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim holding that a libel claim is not a personal injury tort claim holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim