economic loss doctrine in Indiana

2023“When such damages occur, recovery in tort is appropriate, and the economic loss doctrine does not bar recovery.” Id. [21] The Court further explained that “[o]ur economic loss doctrine is rooted in the understanding that parties typically allocate the risk of economic loss through a direct, contractual relationship.” Id.

2023“When such damages occur, recovery in tort is appropriate, and the economic loss doctrine does not bar recovery.” Id. [21] The Court further explained that “[o]ur economic loss doctrine is rooted in the understanding that parties typically allocate the risk of economic loss through a direct, contractual relationship.” Id.

2010To further illustrate, we note that in Runde v. Vigus Realty, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 572 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), the defendant persuaded the trial court that the economic loss doctrine barred any recovery for negligence even though there was no contractual relationship between the parties.

2009See Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 996 (Ind.1991) (addressing a negligence claim against a doctor, a professional, and holding that the imposition of a duty should not be dependent upon the nature of the damages, le., whether the damages are personal injury or economic, which flow as a result of its breach); Runde v. Vigus Realty, Inc., 617 N.E.2d 572, 575 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (holding that the economic loss doctrine did not apply to the plaintiffs' claim for negligence which was based upon the alleged negligent performance of a duty undertaken by a gratuitous agent); A.C.

2010In Martin Ris-pens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., the plaintiffs negligence claim alleged defendant had marketed infected seeds that failed to perform as expected, leaving plaintiff with a damaged crop that resulted in lost profits. 621 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind.1993).

2004The economic loss rule applies to bar recovery "where a negligence claim is based upon a product's failure to perform as expected and the plaintiff suffers only economic damages." Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, 621 N.E.2d 1078, 1089 (Ind.1998).

2009Specifically, the majority notes that "an exeeption to the economic loss doctrine arises in the absence of privity when an architect creates a condition that is imminently dangerous to third persons and injury has resulted." Op. at 813 (relying on Hiatt v. Brown, 422 N.E.2d 736, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.1981)).

2009Specifically, the majority notes that "an exception to the economic loss doctrine arises in the absence of privity when an architect creates a condition that is imminently dangerous to third persons and injury has resulted." Op. at 813 (relying on Hiatt v. Brown, 422 N.E.2d 736, 740 (Ind. Ct.App.1981)).

2010We agree with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's observation in 1325 N. Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd., 293 Wis.2d 410 , 716 N.W.2d 822, 831 (2006), where it noted that the principles underlying application of the economic loss doctrine to tort actions are "(1) to maintain the fundamental distinction between tort law and contract law; (2) protect commercial parties' freedom to allocate economic risk by contract; and (8) to encourage the party best situated to assess the risk [of] economic loss, the commercial purchaser, to assume, allocate, or insure against that risk." In accordance with thi

2010We agree with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin's observation in 1325 N. Van Buren, LLC v. T-3 Group, Ltd., 293 Wis.2d 410 , 716 N.W.2d 822, 831 (2006), where it noted that the principles underlying application of the economic loss doctrine to tort actions are "(1) to maintain the fundamental distinction between tort law and contract law; (2) protect commercial parties' freedom to allocate economic risk by contract; and (8) to encourage the party best situated to assess the risk [of] economic loss, the commercial purchaser, to assume, allocate, or insure against that risk." In accordance with thi

2023“And when construction-project participants are connected in this way, the economic loss rule prevents a party from recovering in tort for commercial losses that it could have protected itself against through the contractual relationship.” Id. [22] Our Supreme Court summarized the analysis involved as follows: “Thus, when determining whether our economic loss doctrine precludes tort recovery, two considerations guide our review: the type of damages sought and the contractual relationship between the parties.” Id.

2023“And when construction-project participants are connected in this way, the economic loss rule prevents a party from recovering in tort for commercial losses that it could have protected itself against through the contractual relationship.” Id. [22] Our Supreme Court summarized the analysis involved as follows: “Thus, when determining whether our economic loss doctrine precludes tort recovery, two considerations guide our review: the type of damages sought and the contractual relationship between the parties.” Id.

2020Indeed, “contract is the only available remedy ‘where the loss is solely economic in nature, as where the only claim of loss relates to the product’s failure to live up to expectations, and in the absence of damage to other property or person.’” Id. (quoting Reed, 621 N.E.2d at 1074–75). [104] Viking argues that the economic loss doctrine does not bar its negligence claim because Viking never contracted with NBD for the mitigation and repair of the damaged equipment.

2017The economic loss rule serves a second purpose related to the question of unlimited scope of damages: use of tort remedies may create “ ‘a potential for La-bility so uncertain in time, class, or amount that [a defendant should not be] fairly or practically expected to account for the potential liability when undertaking the conduct that gives rise to it.’” Id. at 730 (quoting Restatement (Third) of Economic Torts and Related Wrongs § 8, cmt. d(2) (Council Draft No. 2, 2007)).

2020See Richter, 599 N.E.2d at 225, 227 (summary judgment must be denied if resolution hinges upon state of mind, credibility of the witnesses, or the weight of the testimony; mere improbability of recovery at trial does not justify entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff); Kennedy v. Guess, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 776, 783 (Ind. 2004) (summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases); Florio v. Tilley, 875 N.E.2d 253, 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and reasonable care are more appropriately left for the determination of a trier of

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-671 | November 30, 2020 Page 15 of 54 Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343, 346 (Ind. 2001) (citations omitted). [36] “The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no material factual dispute and which can be resolved as a matter of law.” Ebersol v. Mishler, 775 N.E.2d 373, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

2020See Richter, 599 N.E.2d at 225, 227 (summary judgment must be denied if resolution hinges upon state of mind, credibility of the witnesses, or the weight of the testimony; mere improbability of recovery at trial does not justify entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff); Kennedy v. Guess, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 776, 783 (Ind. 2004) (summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases); Florio v. Tilley, 875 N.E.2d 253, 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and reasonable care are more appropriately left for the determination of a trier of

2020See Richter, 599 N.E.2d at 225, 227 (summary judgment must be denied if resolution hinges upon state of mind, credibility of the witnesses, or the weight of the testimony; mere improbability of recovery at trial does not justify entry of summary judgment against the plaintiff); Kennedy v. Guess, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 776, 783 (Ind. 2004) (summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases); Florio v. Tilley, 875 N.E.2d 253, 256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (“Issues of negligence, contributory negligence, causation, and reasonable care are more appropriately left for the determination of a trier of

2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-PL-671 | November 30, 2020 Page 15 of 54 Tom-Wat, Inc. v. Fink, 741 N.E.2d 343, 346 (Ind. 2001) (citations omitted). [36] “The purpose of summary judgment is to terminate litigation about which there can be no material factual dispute and which can be resolved as a matter of law.” Ebersol v. Mishler, 775 N.E.2d 373, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.

2020Thalheimer v. Halum, 973 N.E.2d 1145, 1152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

2015See Cartwright, 526 N.E.2d at 1240 . [13] Turning to whether the Martins were entitled to recover their repair costs by alleging that a tort occurred, we observe that the economic loss rule precludes tort liability for purely economic loss.

2010P'ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 Ariz. 320 , 223 P.3d 664, 673 (2010). 14 To the same effect, the Nevada Supreme Court has held, We perceive no significant policy distinction that would drive us to permit tort-based claims to recover economic losses against design professionals, such as architects and engineers, who provided their professional services in the commercial property development and improvement process, when we have concluded that such claims are barred under the economic loss doctrine if brought against contractors and subcontractors involved in physically constructing improve

2010P'ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 223 Ariz. 320 , 223 P.3d 664, 673 (2010). 14 To the same effect, the Nevada Supreme Court has held, We perceive no significant policy distinction that would drive us to permit tort-based claims to recover economic losses against design professionals, such as architects and engineers, who provided their professional services in the commercial property development and improvement process, when we have concluded that such claims are barred under the economic loss doctrine if brought against contractors and subcontractors involved in physically constructing improve

2010Co., 856 P.2d 766, 772 (Alaska 1993); it makes no holding of its own to that effect. 13 .

2010Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., 900 N.E.2d 801, 804 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. granted.

2010Terracon Consultants W., Inc. v. Mandalay Resort Group, 206 P.3d 81, 89 (Nev. 2009).

2010The 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).

2010The 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).