economic loss doctrine in Rhode Island

2019Where there are damages in the construction context between commercial entities, the economic loss doctrine will bar any tort claims for "purely economic damages." Id. (quoting E.W.

2011Burman , our Supreme Court, when discussing the purpose of the economic loss doctrine, stated that "it is appropriate for sophisticated commercial entities to utilize contract law to protect themselves from economic damages." Id.

2019"The economic loss doctrine provides that 'a plaintiff is precluded from recovering purely economic losses in a negligence cause of action.' " Franklin Grove Corp. v. Drexel , 936 A.2d 1272 , 1275 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Boston Investment Property # 1 State v. E.W.

2019"The economic loss doctrine provides that 'a plaintiff is precluded from recovering purely economic losses in a negligence cause of action.' " Franklin Grove Corp. v. Drexel , 936 A.2d 1272 , 1275 (R.I. 2007) (quoting Boston Investment Property # 1 State v. E.W.

2007Although the lower court ruled in favor of Ferreira, this Court, in an effort to provide increased protection to consumers dealing with commercial entities, vacated the lower court’s ruling and concluded that “‘the economic loss doctrine is not applicable to consumer transactions.’ ” Id. at 192, 193 .

2006Constr., Inc., 727 A.2d 190 , 193 (R.I. 1999) (concluding that "the economic loss doctrine is not applicable to consumer transactions").

2011Co. v. Elizabeth State Bank , 265 F.3d 601 , 618-19 (7th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that the implied duty of care between a bank and its customers is derived from the common law, embraced by the UCC, and will support recovery in either contract or tort) and Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross Co. , 636 N.E.2d 503 , 515 (Ill. 1994) (emphasizing that because the duty to observe reasonable professional competence exists independently of any contract, the economic loss doctrine does not bar recovery in tort)).

2004As with attorneys and accountants, the law has long imposed on banks a duty of reasonable care and that duty is so entrenched that the UCC does not permit the parties to a banking contract to abandon it." Id. at 615 (emphasis added).

2011Splendorio v. Bilray Demolition Co. , 682 A.2d 461 , 467 (R.I. 1996) (noting that "the determination of proximate cause . . . is a question of fact that should not be decided by summary judgment"); see also Seide v. State , 875 A.2d 1259 , 1268 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Rodrigues v. Miriam Hosp. , 623 A.2d 456 , 461 (R.I. 1993) (stating that "`the existence and the extent of a duty of care are questions of law . . . [, but] whether such duty has been breached and whether proximate cause [exists] are the questions for the factfinder'").

2011Splendorio v. Bilray Demolition Co. , 682 A.2d 461 , 467 (R.I. 1996) (noting that "the determination of proximate cause . . . is a question of fact that should not be decided by summary judgment"); see also Seide v. State , 875 A.2d 1259 , 1268 (R.I. 2005) (quoting Rodrigues v. Miriam Hosp. , 623 A.2d 456 , 461 (R.I. 1993) (stating that "`the existence and the extent of a duty of care are questions of law . . . [, but] whether such duty has been breached and whether proximate cause [exists] are the questions for the factfinder'").

2011See Ciccone 2004 WL 2075120 , at *5 (citing Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec., Inc. , 674 N.W.2d 886 , 892 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)) (stating that the "applicability of the economic loss doctrine to a particular factual scenario constitutes a question of law").

2011See Ciccone 2004 WL 2075120 , at *5 (citing Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Cease Elec., Inc. , 674 N.W.2d 886 , 892 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003)) (stating that the "applicability of the economic loss doctrine to a particular factual scenario constitutes a question of law").

2007We previously have held that “[cjontribution may be had if the aggrieved party has a cause of action ‘against both the party seeking contribution and the party from whom contribution is sought.’” R & R Associates v. City of Providence Water Supply Board, 724 A.2d 432, 434 (R.I.1999) (quoting Boucher v. McGovern, 639 A.2d 1369, 1374 (R.I.1994)).

2007We previously have held that “[cjontribution may be had if the aggrieved party has a cause of action ‘against both the party seeking contribution and the party from whom contribution is sought.’” R & R Associates v. City of Providence Water Supply Board, 724 A.2d 432, 434 (R.I.1999) (quoting Boucher v. McGovern, 639 A.2d 1369, 1374 (R.I.1994)).

2007Because the economic loss doctrine bars a primary negligence claim, plaintiff, who is the aggrieved party in this matter, is unable to *1278 recover “against both the party seeking contribution and the party from whom contribution is sought.” Id.

2006Berman, Inc., 658 A.2d 515 , 517 (R.I. 1995); see Levin v. Kilborn, 756 A.2d 169 , 174 (R.I. 2000) (noting that the economic loss doctrine "make[s] tort claims unavailable in circumstances in which the parties were in a contractual setting and the injuries were purely economic").

2004Compare Cargill, Inc. v. Boag Cold Storage Warehouse, 71 F.3d 545 , 550 (6th Cir. 1995) (stating that the economic loss doctrine "is associated with `transactions in goods,' and not with transactions in services"); Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross Co., 636 N.E.2d 503 , 515 (Ill. 1994) (finding the economic loss doctrine inapplicable to tort claim in accountant malpractice action); and Collins v. Reynard, 607 N.E.2d 1185 , 1186 (Ill. 1992) (declining to apply the economic loss doctrine to tort claim in legal malpractice suit) with Bristol-Myers Squibb, Indus.