green
Positive treatment
Trending · 75 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 2×
25.7 score
“unlike contracts for products or goods, which enjoy the benefit of well-developed law under the u.c.c., no such benefit exists for contracts for services. this is because the u.c.c. does not apply to service contracts.”
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Ripp Distributing v. Ruby Distribution
Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 225 Wis. 2d 305, 348 , 592 N.W.2d 201 (1999) (consumer transactions); Below v. Norton, 2008 WI 77, ¶3 , 310 Wis. 2d 713 , 751 N.W.2d 351 (real estate transactions); Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶8 , 262 Wis. 2d 32 , 662 N.W.2d 652 (authorized distribution agreement); but see Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec., Inc., 2004 WI 139, ¶52 , 276 Wis. 2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462 (declining to extend the doctrine to contracts for the sale of “services”).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In re: Netgain Technology, LLC Consumer Data Breach Litigation
e determine that the economic loss doctrine is inapplicable to claims for the negligent provision of services.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
David v. Hett
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
unlike contracts for products or goods, which enjoy the benefit of well-developed law under the u.c.c., no such benefit exists for contracts for services. this is because the u.c.c. does not apply to service contracts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
May v. First Rate Excavate, Inc.
Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Wis. 2004)). [¶9.] “The prohibition against tort actions to recover solely economic damages for those in contractual privity is designed to prevent parties to a contract from circumventing the allocation of losses set forth in the contract by bringing an action for economic loss in tort.” Id. (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kunes Country Automotive Management Inc v. Walters
Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 466 (Wis. 2004).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commercial Painting Company INC. v. The Weitz Company LLC
(3×)
Inc., 2004 WI 139, ¶ 24 , 276 Wis. 2d 361, 372 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (“In general, tort offers a broader array of damages than contract.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barclay Lofts LLC v. PPG Industries Inc
Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec., Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Wis. 2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
NEXT Millennium Telecom Co v. American Signal Corporation
Co. of N. Am v. Cease Elec., Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Wis. 2004); Van Lare v. Vogt, Inc., 683 N.W.2d 46, 51 (Wis. 2004); Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 573 N.W.2d 842, 846 (Wis. 1998)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brilliant DPI Inc v. CIT Technology Financing Services Inc
Inc., 276 Wis. 2d 361, 369 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 466 (2004)). “[I]ts purpose is to preserve the distinction between contract and tort by requiring transacting parties to pursue only their contractual remedies when asserting an economic loss claim.” Kaloti Enters., Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co., 283 Wis. 2d 555, 579 , 699 N.W.2d 205, 216 (2005) (citing Cease Elec.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kreisers Inc. v. First Dakota Title Ltd. Partnership
(2×)
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ladd Landing, LLC v. Tennessee Valley Authority
Ham cited a statement from Cease that the “genesis of the economic loss doctrine lies in products liability eases[ ]” Ham, 694 F.Supp.2d at 922 (quoting Cease, 688 N.W.2d at 467 ), and described Cease as stating that “[s]ince the UCC is inapplicable to service contracts ... it would not apply the economic loss doctrine to suits seeking recovery for negligently provided services.” Ham, 694 F.Supp.2d at 922 (citing Cease, 688 N.W.2d at 470, 472 ).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. LEI WANG
E.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Cease Electric Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467-72 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C.
The Library acknowledges that we repeatedly say in Gunkel that the economic loss rule applies to services as well as products, 822 N.E.2d at 153 , but points us to five cases from other jurisdictions in support of its contention that it should not, notably Insurance Co. of North America v. Cease Electric Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 NW.2d 462, 464 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Western Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. CONREAL LLC
Inc., *290 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 470 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Broadnax v. Swift Transportation Corp.
(2×)
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ham v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.
(2×)
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pascarella v. Swift Transportation Co.
(2×)
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lott v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC.
(2×)
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Krueger International, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co.
Even if the accident caused merely “economic loss,” which is to say loss not involving damage to person or property, so that under the “economic loss” doctrine the loss could be recovered if at all only in a suit for breach of contract, 1825 North Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd., 293 Wis.2d 410 , 716 N.W.2d 822, 831 (Wis. 2006); Insurance Co. of North America v. Cease Electric Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 468-72 (Wis.2004); Rich Products Corp. v. Kemutec Inc., 241 F.3d 915, 917-19 (7th Cir.2001) (Wis.law); Flintkote Co. v. Dravo Corp., supra, 678 F.2d at 945-47 , a liabilit…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson Stephens, Inc. v. Chubb Corp.
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467, 472 (2004) (holding that the rule does not apply to bar tort claims against service providers).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamill v. Pawtucket Mutual Insurance
Inc., 2004 WI 139 ¶¶ 25, 52 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467, 472 (noting jurisdictional split and holding economic-loss doctrine inapplicable to claims for negligent provision of services).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cerabio, LLC v. Wright Medical Tech
Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (Wis. 2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cerabio LLC and Phillips Plastics Corporation v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc.
Inc., 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462, 467 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural Studio
(2×)
Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 471-72 (Wis.2004) (criticizing the Illinois approach and adopting a bright-line rule that the economic loss doctrine is inapplicable to claims for the negligent provision of services).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Indemnity Ins. Co. v. American Aviation
Inc., 688 N.W.2d 462, 472 (Wis.2004) (holding as a "bright line rule" that "the economic loss doctrine is inapplicable to claims for the negligent provision of services"); Congregation of the Passion, 201 Ill.Dec. 71 , 636 N.E.2d at 514 (stating that the economic loss rule applies to services relationships "only where the duty of the party performing the service is defined by the contract that he executes with his client"); McCarthy Well Co. v. St.
discussed
Cited "see"
TJ Prop, LLC v. Tim Mueller Mason Contractor, LLC
See Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec., Inc., 2004 WI 139, ¶52 , 276 Wis. 2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462 (“[T]he economic loss doctrine is inapplicable to claims for the negligent provision of services.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Bruzzese v. Bruzzese
See Insurance Company of North America v. Cease Electric Inc., 276 Wis. 2d 361 , 688 N.W. 2d 462 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Triad Group, Inc. v. Vi-Jon, Inc.
See, e.g., Insurance Co. of North America v. Cease Electric, Inc., 2004 WI 139 ¶ 24 , 276 Wis.2d 361 , 688 N.W.2d 462 , Van Lare v. Vogt, Inc., 2004 WI 110, ¶ 17 , 274 Wis.2d 631 , 683 N.W.2d 46 , Daanen, 216 Wis.2d at 403 , 573 N.W.2d at 846 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kenosha Hospital & Medical Center, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Jesus E. Garcia, Defendant, Richter Industries, Inc., Garnishee-Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
v.
Jesus E. Garcia, Defendant, Richter Industries, Inc., Garnishee-Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner
02-1727.
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Nov 4, 2004.
PER CURIAM
¶ 1. {on motion for clarification). Richter Industries, Inc. petitions this court for clarification of our decision in Kenosha Hospital & Medical [*360] Center v. Garcia, 2004 WI 105, 274 Wis. 2d 338, 683 N.W.2d 425, regarding directions upon remand. Specifically, Richter asks this court to clarify the directions upon remand as to whether Kenosha Hospital should be allowed to conduct further discovery to support its claim that the notice of motion for judgment against Richter was properly served. The court answers the question in the affirmative.
¶ 2. The motion for clarification is granted, without costs.
¶ 3.
LOUIS B. BUTLER, JR., J., did not participate.