19 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hale v. Grocegreen2 sentences2023As Harris explains, the economic loss doctrine in Oregon is reflected in the rule that “ ‘one ordinarily is not liable for negligently causing a stranger’s purely economic loss’ ” in the absence of “ ‘some source of duty outside the common law of negligence,’ * * * such as a special relation- ship or status that imposed a duty on the defendant beyond the common-law negligence standard.” Id. at 308 (quoting Hale, 304 Or at 284 ) (internal citation omitted; brackets from Harris omitted). 2023Id. at 307 ; see id. (“[T]his court has recognized the substance (although not the label) of the economic loss doctrine at least since Snow Cite as 371 Or 536 (2023) 553 v. West, 250 Or 114 , 440 P2d 864 (1968)[.]”). | 3 | 10 |
Harris v. Sunigagreen2 sentences2023As Harris explains, the economic loss doctrine in Oregon is reflected in the rule that “ ‘one ordinarily is not liable for negligently causing a stranger’s purely economic loss’ ” in the absence of “ ‘some source of duty outside the common law of negligence,’ * * * such as a special relation- ship or status that imposed a duty on the defendant beyond the common-law negligence standard.” Id. at 308 (quoting Hale, 304 Or at 284 ) (internal citation omitted; brackets from Harris omitted). 2023As Harris explains, the economic loss doctrine in Oregon is reflected in the rule that “ ‘one ordinarily is not liable for negligently causing a stranger’s purely economic loss’ ” in the absence of “ ‘some source of duty outside the common law of negligence,’ * * * such as a special relation- ship or status that imposed a duty on the defendant beyond the common-law negligence standard.” Id. at 308 (quoting Hale, 304 Or at 284 ) (internal citation omitted; brackets from Harris omitted). | 3 | 8 |
Snow v. Westgreen2 sentences2023Id. at 307 ; see id. (“[T]his court has recognized the substance (although not the label) of the economic loss doctrine at least since Snow Cite as 371 Or 536 (2023) 553 v. West, 250 Or 114 , 440 P2d 864 (1968)[.]”). 2023Id. at 307 ; see id. (“[T]his court has recognized the substance (although not the label) of the economic loss doctrine at least since Snow Cite as 371 Or 536 (2023) 553 v. West, 250 Or 114 , 440 P2d 864 (1968)[.]”). | 3 | 6 |
Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronsongreen2 sentences2006Hale , in turn, was later read in Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronson, 315 Or 149 , 843 P2d 890 (1992), to have established that the economic loss doctrine does not operate as an absolute bar to recovery in tort; what is required is a special duty, the breach of which may form the basis for a tort *417 claim. 2006Hale , in turn, was later read in Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronson, 315 Or 149 , 843 P2d 890 (1992), to have established that the economic loss doctrine does not operate as an absolute bar to recovery in tort; what is required is a special duty, the breach of which may form the basis for a tort *417 claim. | 2 | 8 |
JH Kelly, LLC v. Quality Plus Services, Inc.green2 sentences2026We further noted that “[n]o Oregon case, however, has sought to foreclose other potential limiters that might ren- der the economic loss rule inapplicable.” Id. at 575 . 2026Later we stated that “the pipes themselves—regardless of who owned them—provide the conceptual limiter that renders the prag- matic concerns over unbounded litigation that underlie the economic loss rule inapplicable to this case.” Id. at 578 . | 2 | 3 |
Ore-Ida Foods, Inc. v. Indian Head Cattle Co.green2 sentences2021See Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909 , 916 & nn 5-10, 917 & nn 11-14, 627 P2d 469 (1981) (detailing the history of the economic loss doctrine in the United States and England and citing cases applying that rule from numerous jurisdictions going back to 1856). 430 Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP loss and property injuries is irrelevant in other areas. 2021See Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909 , 916 & nn 5-10, 917 & nn 11-14, 627 P2d 469 (1981) (detailing the history of the economic loss doctrine in the United States and England and citing cases applying that rule from numerous jurisdictions going back to 1856). 430 Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP loss and property injuries is irrelevant in other areas. | 1 | 4 |
Harris v. Sunigagreen2 sentences2016Specifically, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, a remedy in Tort is not available” (Emphasis added.) 11 Springville contends that that ruling was error under Harris v. Suniga, 209 Or App 410, 421-23 , 149 P3d 224 (2006), aff'd, 344 Or 301 , 180 P3d 12 (2008), which established that property owners may assert negligence claims against contractors for property damage and are not precluded from doing that by the economic-loss doctrine. 2016Specifically, the Court finds that, as a matter of law, a remedy in Tort is not available” (Emphasis added.) 11 Springville contends that that ruling was error under Harris v. Suniga, 209 Or App 410, 421-23 , 149 P3d 224 (2006), aff'd, 344 Or 301 , 180 P3d 12 (2008), which established that property owners may assert negligence claims against contractors for property damage and are not precluded from doing that by the economic-loss doctrine. | 1 | 3 |
Lansing v. John Does 1-5green2 sentences2021See id. (‘Every physical injury to property can be characterized as a species of “economic loss” for the property owner, because every injury diminishes the financial value of the property owner’s assets,’ but ‘the law ordinarily allows the owner of [a] damaged car or residence to recover in negligence from the person who caused the damage.’).” Lansing v. John Does 1-5, 300 Or App 803, 807-08 , 455 P3d 541 (2019) (brackets in original). 2019The economic loss doctrine is a common-law doc- trine that “bars a party that has suffered a purely economic loss from bringing a negligence action against the party that caused the loss, unless there is a special relationship between the parties.” Harris v. Suniga, 344 Or 301, 305 , 180 Cite as 300 Or App 803 (2019) 807 P3d 12 (2008); see also Hettle v. Construction Contractors Board, 260 Or App 135, 147 , 316 P3d 344 (2013) (“[U]nder the common-law ‘economic loss’ doctrine, economic damages * * * are recoverable in negligence only if the defendant is subject to a heightened standard of care, | 1 | 2 |
McEvoy v. Heliksongreen1 sentence2021The finder of facts could properly infer from all of such facts appearing in the complaint and in the stip- ulation and order, if supported by evidence on trial, that the primary purpose of the provisions requiring her to surrender her passport and requiring that it be returned only ‘when the child has been returned’ to plaintiff, was to protect plaintiff against the happening of that very danger—i.e., that it was foreseeable that she might not return the child, but take it with her back to Switzerland.” Id. at 787-88 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Hettle v. Construction Contractors Boardgreen2 sentences2019The economic loss doctrine is a common-law doc- trine that “bars a party that has suffered a purely economic loss from bringing a negligence action against the party that caused the loss, unless there is a special relationship between the parties.” Harris v. Suniga, 344 Or 301, 305 , 180 Cite as 300 Or App 803 (2019) 807 P3d 12 (2008); see also Hettle v. Construction Contractors Board, 260 Or App 135, 147 , 316 P3d 344 (2013) (“[U]nder the common-law ‘economic loss’ doctrine, economic damages * * * are recoverable in negligence only if the defendant is subject to a heightened standard of care, 2019The economic loss doctrine is a common-law doc- trine that “bars a party that has suffered a purely economic loss from bringing a negligence action against the party that caused the loss, unless there is a special relationship between the parties.” Harris v. Suniga, 344 Or 301, 305 , 180 Cite as 300 Or App 803 (2019) 807 P3d 12 (2008); see also Hettle v. Construction Contractors Board, 260 Or App 135, 147 , 316 P3d 344 (2013) (“[U]nder the common-law ‘economic loss’ doctrine, economic damages * * * are recoverable in negligence only if the defendant is subject to a heightened standard of care, | 1 | 1 |
FountainCourt Homeowners' Ass'n v. FountainCourt Development, LLCgreen2 sentences2019Under the doctrine, “one ordinarily is not liable for negligently causing a stranger’s purely economic loss without injuring his person or property; rather, some source of duty outside the common law of negligence is required.” FountainCourt Homeowners v. FountainCourt Develop., 264 Or App 468 , 484 n 11, 334 P3d 973 (2014) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). 2019Similarly, albeit in a different context, in FountainCourt Homeowners, we referenced the economic loss doctrine in concluding that, where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant’s negligence had caused water intrusion into a building, resulting in physical damage to building compo- nents, the plaintiff was seeking and received damages for “physical property damage.” 264 Or App at 484 (emphasis omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Simpkins v. Connorgreen1 sentence2012Citing that decision, we concluded that the plaintiff’s complaint stated a claim for relief in negligence because ‘a reasonable jury could [have found] it foreseeable that losing a piece of evidence would diminish the value of the lawsuit.’ It appears that we simply concluded that the trial court had applied the wrong negligence principles; we did not consider the economic loss rule set forth in Fazzolari and later cases or, therefore, whether any duty arose under the circumstances of Boden on which an action for economic loss could be predicated.” Simpkins, 210 Or App at 229 (citations omitte | 1 | 1 |
Ultramares Corp. v. Touchegreen2 sentences2008In later cases, this court explained the reasons for its adoption of the economic loss doctrine, noting that permitting the recovery of all economic losses caused by a person’s negligence would have *308 the potential of leading to “limitless recoveries and * * * ruinous consequences,” Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 917 , 627 P2d 469 (1980), and quoting Judge Cardozo’s statement from Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 NY 170, 179, 174 NE 441 (1931), that allowing recovery in negligence for economic losses unrelated to injury to person or property could lead to “ ‘liability in an indete 2008In later cases, this court explained the reasons for its adoption of the economic loss doctrine, noting that permitting the recovery of all economic losses caused by a person’s negligence would have *308 the potential of leading to “limitless recoveries and * * * ruinous consequences,” Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 917 , 627 P2d 469 (1980), and quoting Judge Cardozo’s statement from Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 NY 170, 179, 174 NE 441 (1931), that allowing recovery in negligence for economic losses unrelated to injury to person or property could lead to “ ‘liability in an indete | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Securities-Intermountain, Inc. v. Sunset Fuel Co.
green
2 sentences2023We have already explained, however, that Securities- Intermountain rejected the notion that the phrase “injury to a person or to property” had a plain, natural, or ordi- nary meaning that would exclude “financial ‘injuries’ from faulty performance.” 371 Or at 549-50 (quoting Securities- Intermountain, 289 Or at 248 ). 2023We have already explained, however, that Securities- Intermountain rejected the notion that the phrase “injury to a person or to property” had a plain, natural, or ordi- nary meaning that would exclude “financial ‘injuries’ from faulty performance.” 371 Or at 549-50 (quoting Securities- Intermountain, 289 Or at 248 ). | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Marshall v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
green
2 sentences2023The Court of Appeals offered a slight varia- tion on that reasoning when it pointed to the same “distinc- tion between purely economic loss and injuries to persons or property that has long been the basis of the economic loss doctrine” to conclude that our construction of the statute at issue in Securities-Intermountain reflects “the ‘plain, natu- ral, and ordinary meaning’ of the ‘injury to person or prop- erty’ language used in ORS 12.115(1).” Marshall, 316 Or App at 429 , 430 (quoting PGE, 317 Or at 611 ). 2023The Court of Appeals offered a slight varia- tion on that reasoning when it pointed to the same “distinc- tion between purely economic loss and injuries to persons or property that has long been the basis of the economic loss doctrine” to conclude that our construction of the statute at issue in Securities-Intermountain reflects “the ‘plain, natu- ral, and ordinary meaning’ of the ‘injury to person or prop- erty’ language used in ORS 12.115(1).” Marshall, 316 Or App at 429 , 430 (quoting PGE, 317 Or at 611 ). | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Portland General Electric Co. v. Bureau of Labor & Industries
green
2 sentences2023The Court of Appeals offered a slight varia- tion on that reasoning when it pointed to the same “distinc- tion between purely economic loss and injuries to persons or property that has long been the basis of the economic loss doctrine” to conclude that our construction of the statute at issue in Securities-Intermountain reflects “the ‘plain, natu- ral, and ordinary meaning’ of the ‘injury to person or prop- erty’ language used in ORS 12.115(1).” Marshall, 316 Or App at 429 , 430 (quoting PGE, 317 Or at 611 ). 2023The Court of Appeals offered a slight varia- tion on that reasoning when it pointed to the same “distinc- tion between purely economic loss and injuries to persons or property that has long been the basis of the economic loss doctrine” to conclude that our construction of the statute at issue in Securities-Intermountain reflects “the ‘plain, natu- ral, and ordinary meaning’ of the ‘injury to person or prop- erty’ language used in ORS 12.115(1).” Marshall, 316 Or App at 429 , 430 (quoting PGE, 317 Or at 611 ). | 3 | 2023–2023 |
Newman v. Tualatin Development Co.
green
2 sentences2008The plaintiffs in Newman sought damages from the builder for the cost of the repair and replacement of galvanized water pipes that were deteriorating, alleging negligence and breach of warranty. 287 Or at 49 . 2006According to plaintiffs, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Newman v. Tualatin Development Co., Inc., 287 Or 47 , 597 P2d 800 (1979), their loss is property damage, which is recoverable in negligence without proof of a special relationship. | 2 | 2006–2008 |
Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon
green
2 sentences2026Plaintiff assigns error to that ruling.1 Applying our decision in Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 237 Or App 584 , 240 P3d 1110 (2010), aff’d on other grounds, 351 Or 587 , 273 P3d 106 (2012) (Paul I), which plaintiff does not challenge and, indeed, contends was correctly decided, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm. 2026Plaintiff assigns error to that ruling.1 Applying our decision in Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 237 Or App 584 , 240 P3d 1110 (2010), aff’d on other grounds, 351 Or 587 , 273 P3d 106 (2012) (Paul I), which plaintiff does not challenge and, indeed, contends was correctly decided, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon
green
2 sentences2026Plaintiff assigns error to that ruling.1 Applying our decision in Paul v. Providence Health System-Oregon, 237 Or App 584 , 240 P3d 1110 (2010), aff’d on other grounds, 351 Or 587 , 273 P3d 106 (2012) (Paul I), which plaintiff does not challenge and, indeed, contends was correctly decided, we conclude that the trial court did not err and affirm. 2026Applying Supreme Court case law and the economic loss doctrine, we concluded that in such a circumstance, “plaintiffs must, at the least, identify a duty that defendant owed them—beyond the common-law duty to exercise reasonable care—to guard against that economic harm.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Roberts v. Fearey
green
2 sentences2026Cite as 347 Or App 169 (2026) 177 losses on a theory of negligence”); Roberts v. Feary, 162 Or App 546, 550 , 986 P2d 690 (1999) (noting that a plaintiff cannot recover purely economic losses without relying on some duty outside the common law of negligence and stating that a plaintiff must first show the “existence” of that duty before foreseeability comes into play); see also JH Kelly, LLC, 305 Or App at 573-74 (noting that the economic loss doctrine emerged following concerns that while foreseeability princi- ples offer some “nominal logical limit,” its broad conceptual application led to t 2026Cite as 347 Or App 169 (2026) 177 losses on a theory of negligence”); Roberts v. Feary, 162 Or App 546, 550 , 986 P2d 690 (1999) (noting that a plaintiff cannot recover purely economic losses without relying on some duty outside the common law of negligence and stating that a plaintiff must first show the “existence” of that duty before foreseeability comes into play); see also JH Kelly, LLC, 305 Or App at 573-74 (noting that the economic loss doctrine emerged following concerns that while foreseeability princi- ples offer some “nominal logical limit,” its broad conceptual application led to t | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Eldred v. Oregon Anesthesiology Group
neutral
1 sentence2026Cite as 347 Or App 169 (2026) 177 losses on a theory of negligence”); Roberts v. Feary, 162 Or App 546, 550 , 986 P2d 690 (1999) (noting that a plaintiff cannot recover purely economic losses without relying on some duty outside the common law of negligence and stating that a plaintiff must first show the “existence” of that duty before foreseeability comes into play); see also JH Kelly, LLC, 305 Or App at 573-74 (noting that the economic loss doctrine emerged following concerns that while foreseeability princi- ples offer some “nominal logical limit,” its broad conceptual application led to t | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Diamond Heating, Inc. v. Clackamas County
green
1 sentence2021Cite as 316 Or App 579 (2021) 589 If Freauff had set fire to her employer’s building, and inside that building was a safe with money, this case would not be barred by the economic loss rule. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Cron v. Zimmer
green
2 sentences2021Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or App 114, 129 , 296 P3d 567 (2013). issue on appeal is the applicability of the economic loss rule. 2021Cron v. Zimmer, 255 Or App 114, 129 , 296 P3d 567 (2013). issue on appeal is the applicability of the economic loss rule. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Priority Finishing Corp. v. LAL Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2020The defendants argued that the economic loss doctrine “should bar the plaintiff from recovery because the plaintiff was merely a bailee of the damaged property, and therefore sustained no damage to property which it owned.” Id. at 721, 667 NE2d at 292 . 2020The court rejected that argument, explaining that, even though a bailee does not own the bailed property, “his possessory interest is sufficient to maintain an action for damages.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Meininger v. Henris Roofing & Supply of Klamath County, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2019Defendant also cites Meininger v. Henris Roofing & Supply, 137 Or App 451 , 905 P2d 861 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996). 2019Defendant also cites Meininger v. Henris Roofing & Supply, 137 Or App 451 , 905 P2d 861 (1995), rev den, 322 Or 489 (1996). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Yanney v. Koehler
green
1 sentence2019Accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allega- tions and favorable inferences therefrom, Yanney, 147 Or App at 272 , we conclude that the trial court erred in dis- missing the complaint based on the economic loss doctrine. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Duyck v. Tualatin Valley Irrigation District
green
2 sentences2008In later cases, this court explained the reasons for its adoption of the economic loss doctrine, noting that permitting the recovery of all economic losses caused by a person’s negligence would have *308 the potential of leading to “limitless recoveries and * * * ruinous consequences,” Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 917 , 627 P2d 469 (1980), and quoting Judge Cardozo’s statement from Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 NY 170, 179, 174 NE 441 (1931), that allowing recovery in negligence for economic losses unrelated to injury to person or property could lead to “ ‘liability in an indete 2008In later cases, this court explained the reasons for its adoption of the economic loss doctrine, noting that permitting the recovery of all economic losses caused by a person’s negligence would have *308 the potential of leading to “limitless recoveries and * * * ruinous consequences,” Ore-Ida Foods v. Indian Head, 290 Or 909, 917 , 627 P2d 469 (1980), and quoting Judge Cardozo’s statement from Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 NY 170, 179, 174 NE 441 (1931), that allowing recovery in negligence for economic losses unrelated to injury to person or property could lead to “ ‘liability in an indete | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006According to defendants, Newman is “dated,” having been superseded by the Supreme Court’s recognition of the economic loss rule in Fazzolari and Onita, as we recognized in Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc., 188 Or App 471 , 71 P3d 574 , rev den, 336 Or 125 (2003). 2006According to defendants, Newman is “dated,” having been superseded by the Supreme Court’s recognition of the economic loss rule in Fazzolari and Onita, as we recognized in Jones v. Emerald Pacific Homes, Inc., 188 Or App 471 , 71 P3d 574 , rev den, 336 Or 125 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.