Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania

DISSENTING OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent. It is clear under Pennsylvania’s One Call Act (the Act) that in order for Columbia Gas to do business it had the obligation to supply proper information with regard to marking its gas lines. Therefore, I would find that ETI has stated a viable cause of action for *122negligent misrepresentation, pursuant to section 552(3) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, where its claim is solely for economic damages due to Columbia’s mis/mal-feasance under the Act. In short: (1) Columbia had a statutory public duty under the Act to supply…