54 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Alejandre v. Bullgreen2 sentences2025The condominium association and board members note that the Supreme Court, in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674 , 153 P.3d 8644 (2007), applied the former economic loss rule to bar a negligent misrepresentation claim asserted between parties to the sale of real property. 2013These basic concepts have been core principles of the economic loss rule, as the court said in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 683-84 , 153 P.3d 864 (2007): [T]he purpose of the economic loss rule is to bar recovery for alleged breach of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses are economic losses. | 11 | 34 |
Berschauer/Phillips Construction Co. v. Seattle School District No. 1green2 sentences2013The contractor had also been assigned the school district’s contract claims against the architect. ¶45 This court held that “the economic loss rule does not allow a general contractor to recover purely economic damages from a design professional in tort.” 124 Wn.2d at 833 . 2013This court held that "the economic loss rule does not allow a general contractor to recover purely economic damages from a design professional in tort." 124 Wn.2d at 833 . | 5 | 13 |
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc.green2 sentences2013Thus, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the economic loss rule under the Supreme Court’s later recharacterization of this rule and its transformation into the independent duty doctrine. ¶41 As we have already noted, the Eicon court directed lower courts not to apply the independent duty doctrine to bar tort claims, despite the existence of a contract between the parties, “ ‘unless and until’ ” the Supreme Court has “ ‘decided otherwise.’ ” 44 Elcon, 174 Wn.2d at 165 (quoting Eastwood, 170 Wn.2d at 417 (Chambers, J., concurring)). 2013The economic loss rule “attempted to describe the dividing line between the law of torts and the law of contracts.” Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380,385 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010). ¶16 In Eastwood, a majority of this court concluded that the term “economic loss rule” was a misnomer and renamed the rule the “independent duty doctrine” to more accurately describe how this court determines whether one contracting party can seek tort remedies against another party to the contract. | 5 | 11 |
Factory Market, Inc. v. Schuller International Inc.green2 sentences2010It is instead about whether Affiliated FM can seek tort remedies in an action against LTK Consulting, with which SMS had no contract or, indeed, any relationship at all. ¶ 54 In general, the economic loss rule "`prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from contract'" because "`tort law is not intended to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of duties assumed only by agreement.'" Factory Mkt., Inc. v. Schuller Int'l, Inc., 987 F.Supp. 387, 395 (E.D.Pa.1997) (quoting Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. 2010It is instead about whether Affiliated FM can seek tort remedies in an action against LTK Consulting, with which SMS had no contract or, indeed, any relationship at all. ¶54 In general, the economic loss rule “ ‘prohibits plaintiffs from recovering in tort economic losses to which their entitlement flows only from a contract’ ” because “ ‘tort law is not intended to compensate parties for losses suffered as a result of duties assumed only by agreement.’ ” Factory Mkt., Inc. v. Schuller Int’l, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 387, 395 (E.D. | 4 | 5 |
Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc.green2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis.2d 395, 413 , 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998) ("[W]e conclude that the economic loss doctrine precludes a commercial purchaser from recovering in tort from a manufacturer for solely economic losses, regardless of whether privity of contract exists between the parties."). 2010See, e.g., Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis.2d 395, 413 , 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998) ("[W]e conclude that the economic loss doctrine precludes a commercial purchaser from recovering in tort from a manufacturer for solely economic losses, regardless of whether privity of contract exists between the parties."). | 4 | 4 |
Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino and Sons, Inc.red2 sentences2008Ass’n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 1993). ¶21 Similarly, the Nevada Supreme Court held that water damage to flooring and ceilings caused by defective roofing and siding on townhouses was not damage to “other property” under the economic loss rule. 2008Ass'n, Inc. v. Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc., 620 So.2d 1244, 1247 (Fla.1993). ¶ 21 Similarly, the Nevada Supreme Court held that water damage to flooring and ceilings caused by defective roofing and siding on townhouses was not damage to "other property" under the economic loss rule. | 4 | 4 |
Alejandre v. Bullgreen2 sentences2013These basic concepts have been core principles of the economic loss rule, as the court said in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 683-84 , 153 P.3d 864 (2007): [T]he purpose of the economic loss rule is to bar recovery for alleged breach of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses are economic losses. 2013These basic concepts have been core principles of the economic loss rule, as the court said in Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 683-84 , 153 P.3d 864 (2007): [T]he purpose of the economic loss rule is to bar recovery for alleged breach of tort duties where a contractual relationship exists and the losses are economic losses. | 3 | 30 |
Stuart v. Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc.green2 sentences2010Further, we cautioned that in applying the economic loss doctrine "the determinative factor should not be the items for which damages are sought, such as repair costs." Id. at 420 , 745 P.2d 1284 . 2010Further, we cautioned that in applying the economic loss doctrine "the determinative factor should not be the items for which damages are sought, such as repair costs." Id. at 420 , 745 P.2d 1284 . | 2 | 8 |
ATHERTON CONDO APARTMENT-OWNERS ASS'N BD OF DIRECTORS v. Blume Dev. Co.green2 sentences2008Co., 115 Wn.2d 506 , 799 P.2d 250 (1990)], the Alejandres’ fraudulent concealment claim is not precluded by the economic loss rule.” 159 Wn.2d at 689 . 2008Co., 115 Wn.2d 506 , 799 P.2d 250 (1990)], the Alejandres’ fraudulent concealment claim is not precluded by the economic loss rule.” 159 Wn.2d at 689 . | 2 | 5 |
| Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
| Boehme v. United States Postal Servicegreen | 2 | 2 |
| BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Palco Linings, Inc. v. Pavex, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Water's Edge Homeowners Ass'n v. Water's Edge Associatesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Borish v. Russellgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Hudson v. Condongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Calloway v. City of Renogreen | 2 | 2 |
| Veach v. Culpgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Beeson v. Ericksongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Nextel Argentina, S.R.L. Ex Rel. Cigna Argentina Compania De Seguros, S.A. v. Elemar International Forwarding, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Chicago Heights Venture v. Dynamit Nobel of America, Inc., and Brown & Kerr, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
| Snyder v. Lovercheckgreen | 2 | 2 |
Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc.green2 sentences2013The economic loss rule “attempted to describe the dividing line between the law of torts and the law of contracts.” Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380,385 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010). ¶16 In Eastwood, a majority of this court concluded that the term “economic loss rule” was a misnomer and renamed the rule the “independent duty doctrine” to more accurately describe how this court determines whether one contracting party can seek tort remedies against another party to the contract. 2013The economic loss rule "attempted to describe the dividing line between the law of torts and the law of contracts." Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wn.2d 380, 385 , 241 P.3d 1256 (2010). | 1 | 9 |
Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp.green2 sentences2013See, e.g., Berschauer/Phillips, 124 Wn.2d at 828 (general contractor barred from asserting negligent misrepresentation claim against design professionals); Alejandre, 159 Wn.2d at 677 (buyers of home barred from asserting negligent misrepresentation claim against seller); Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wn. 2008See Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wash.App. 202, 213 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998). ¶ 18 The Alejandre court applied these principles to determine whether the economic loss rule precluded a buyer's negligent misrepresentation claim against the seller of a residential home. | 1 | 8 |
Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc.green2 sentences2010Division One of this court held in Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 147 Wash.App. 193 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008), review granted in part by, 166 Wash.2d 1015 , 210 P.3d 1019 (2009) that the economic loss rule, as pronounced in Alejandre , bars claims for intentional misrepresentation. 2010App. 24, 35-36 , 206 P.3d 682 (applying the economic loss rule to preclude tort claims for negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent representation because a contract existed between the parties and all damages were purely economic), review denied, 167 Wn.2d 1006 (2009); Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 147 Wn. | 1 | 7 |
Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp.green2 sentences2008App. 202, 213 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998). ¶18 The Alejandre court applied these principles to determine whether the economic loss rule precluded a buyer’s negligent misrepresentation claim against the seller of a residential home. 2008See Griffith v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 93 Wash.App. 202, 213 , 969 P.2d 486 (1998). ¶ 18 The Alejandre court applied these principles to determine whether the economic loss rule precluded a buyer's negligent misrepresentation claim against the seller of a residential home. | 1 | 5 |
East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc.green2 sentences2010The ultimate question was whether the builder-vendor was under an independent tort duty to avoid the condominium owners' injury, and we concluded not. ¶ 21 The economic loss rule in Washington was heavily influenced by the United States Supreme Court opinion in East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 , 106 S.Ct. 2295 , 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986), and that case also rests on the proposition that an injury is remediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty arising independently of the terms of the contract. 2010The ultimate question was whether the builder-vendor was under an independent tort duty to avoid the condominium owners' injury, and we concluded not. ¶ 21 The economic loss rule in Washington was heavily influenced by the United States Supreme Court opinion in East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 , 106 S.Ct. 2295 , 90 L.Ed.2d 865 (1986), and that case also rests on the proposition that an injury is remediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty arising independently of the terms of the contract. | 1 | 4 |
Elcon Construction, Inc. v. Eastern Washington Universitygreen2 sentences2013The Court reiterated that the independent duty doctrine more accurately captures the principle behind the former economic loss rule: “ ‘An injur/ ... ‘is remediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty arising independently of the terms of the contract.’ ” Elcon, 174 Wn.2d at 165 (quoting Eastwood, 170 Wn.2d at 389 ). 2013Despite holding that “the economic loss rule has no application under the facts of this case,” the Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the tort claims on grounds other than the independent duty rule, which the trial court and Court of Appeals had applied to bar the claims, “[b]ecause Eicon’s tort claims factually fail.” Elcon, 174 Wn.2d at 160, 165 . | 1 | 3 |
| AFFILIATED FM v. LTK Consulting Servicesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corporation v. Caterpillar Tractor Companygreen | 1 | 2 |
| Affiliated FM Insurance v. LTK Consulting Services, Inc.green | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010App. 193 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008), review granted in part, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009) that the economic loss rule, as pronounced in Alejandre , bars claims for intentional misrepresentation. 2010App. 193, 207 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008) (affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because “the homeowners here have failed to articulate a cognizable negligent misrepresentation claim” and not because of an application of the economic loss rule and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim based on the economic loss rule), review granted in part and dismissed, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); King v. Rice, 146 Wn. | 6 | 2009–2010 |
Jackowski v. Borchelt
green
2 sentences2010App. at 578, 589-91 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wn. 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 6 | 2009–2010 |
In Re Francis
neutral
2 sentences2010App. 193 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008), review granted in part, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009) that the economic loss rule, as pronounced in Alejandre , bars claims for intentional misrepresentation. 2010App. 193, 207 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008) (affirming the summary judgment dismissal of a negligent misrepresentation claim because “the homeowners here have failed to articulate a cognizable negligent misrepresentation claim” and not because of an application of the economic loss rule and affirming the summary judgment dismissal of an intentional misrepresentation (fraud) claim based on the economic loss rule), review granted in part and dismissed, 166 Wn.2d 1015 (2009); King v. Rice, 146 Wn. | 5 | 2009–2010 |
Stieneke v. Russi
green
2 sentences2010App. 544, 558-59 , 190 P.3d 60 (2008) (reversing a trial court’s damage award for negligent misrepresentation because the economic loss rule precludes tort damages where losses me purely economic), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1026 (2009). 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 4 | 2010–2014 |
Stieneke v. Russi
green
2 sentences2014In so arguing, Lilla is attempting to apply the economic loss rule as discussed in Stieneke v. Russi, 145 Wn. 2010App. 662, 671 , 191 P.3d 946 (2008) (holding that the economic loss rule did not bar malicious mischief and general negligence claims in a home purchaser’s lawsuit that did not involve any negligent misrepresentation claims), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1049 (2009); Stieneke v. Russi, 145 Wn. | 4 | 2010–2014 |
Major v. Major
neutral
2 sentences2010App. 544, 558-59 , 190 P.3d 60 (2008) (reversing a trial court’s damage award for negligent misrepresentation because the economic loss rule precludes tort damages where losses me purely economic), review denied, 165 Wn.2d 1026 (2009). 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 4 | 2010–2014 |
Jackowski v. Borchelt
green
2 sentences2010App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a homebuyer’s negligent representation claim by applying the economic loss rule in the presence of a contract and distinguishing Alejandre when reversing summary judgment against a real estate agent and his firm because of an improper application of the economic loss rule thát precluded a professional malpractice claim when the agent and firm’s duties were rooted in statutes and the common law and not the contract), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1001 (2010); Cox v. O’Brien, 150 Wn. 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 4 | 2010–2012 |
Ross v. Kirner
green
2 sentences2010Ross, 162 Wn.2d at 499-500 . 2010Ross, 162 Wash.2d at 499-500 , 172 P.3d 701 . | 4 | 2009–2010 |
Jackowski v. Borchelt
neutral
2 sentences2010App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a homebuyer’s negligent representation claim by applying the economic loss rule in the presence of a contract and distinguishing Alejandre when reversing summary judgment against a real estate agent and his firm because of an improper application of the economic loss rule thát precluded a professional malpractice claim when the agent and firm’s duties were rooted in statutes and the common law and not the contract), review granted, 168 Wn.2d 1001 (2010); Cox v. O’Brien, 150 Wn. 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 4 | 2009–2010 |
Davis v. Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2007“Substantial evidence” is evidence that is sufficient “ ‘to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of a declared premise.’ ” Davis, 149 Wn.2d at 531 (quoting Hetman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wn.2d 136, 147 , 381 P.2d 605 (1963)). f 12 Ms. Bull maintains that the Alejandres’ tort claims are precluded by the economic loss rule, as the trial court ruled. f 13 The economic loss rule applies to hold parties to their contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates both tort and contract relief. 2007"Substantial evidence" is evidence that is sufficient "`to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of a declared premise.'" Davis, 149 Wash.2d at 531 , 70 P.3d 126 (quoting Helman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wash.2d 136, 147 , 381 P.2d 605 (1963)). ¶ 12 Ms. Bull maintains that the Alejandres' tort claims are precluded by the economic loss rule, as the trial court ruled. ¶ 13 The economic loss rule applies to hold parties to their contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates both tort and contract relief. | 4 | 2007–2009 |
Jackowski v. Borchelt
green
2 sentences2025Because of two concurring opinions in Eastwood, the Supreme Court later synthesized its views on recasting the economic loss rule as the independent duty doctrine in Jackowski v. Borchelt, 174 Wn.2d 720 (2012). 2013Thus, we review de novo the trial court’s application of the economic loss rule under the Supreme Court’s later recharacterization of this rule and its transformation into the independent duty doctrine. ¶41 As we have already noted, the Eicon court directed lower courts not to apply the independent duty doctrine to bar tort claims, despite the existence of a contract between the parties, “ ‘unless and until’ ” the Supreme Court has “ ‘decided otherwise.’ ” 44 Elcon, 174 Wn.2d at 165 (quoting Eastwood, 170 Wn.2d at 417 (Chambers, J., concurring)). | 3 | 2013–2025 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2012Jackowski v. Borchelt, 168 Wn.2d 1001 , 226 P.3d 780 (2010). 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 3 | 2010–2012 |
Alejandre v. Bull
green
2 sentences2012Judge Rielly dismissed Eicon’s tortious interference, defamation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as factually insufficient but denied summary judgment regarding Eicon’s fraud and false light claims, finding Eicon raised genuine issues of material fact and determining the claims were not barred by the economic loss rule under the Court of Appeals’ Alejandre v. Bull decision, 123 Wn. 2012Judge Rielly dismissed Elcon's tortious interference, defamation, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as factually insufficient but denied summary judgment regarding Elcon's fraud and false light claims, finding Elcon raised genuine issues of material fact and determining the claims were not barred by the economic loss rule under the Court of Appeals' Alejandre v. Bull decision, 123 Wash.App. 611 , 98 P.3d 844 (2004). | 3 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Archie
green
2 sentences2010Division One of this court held in Carlile v. Harbour Homes, Inc., 147 Wash.App. 193 , 194 P.3d 280 (2008), review granted in part by, 166 Wash.2d 1015 , 210 P.3d 1019 (2009) that the economic loss rule, as pronounced in Alejandre , bars claims for intentional misrepresentation. 2010Townsend v. Quadrant Corp., 153 Wash.App. 870 , 224 P.3d 818 (2009) (deciding the legal questions presented without reference to the economic loss rule); Water's Edge Homeowners, 152 Wash.App. at 578, 589-91 , 216 P.3d 1110 (holding that under the circumstances of the case, which did not include a negligent misrepresentation claim, that the trial court could consider the economic loss rule as a defense but not ruling on the merits of the economic loss rule defense on appeal); Jackowski v. Borchelt, 151 Wash.App. 1, 12-15 , 209 P.3d 514 (2009) (affirming summary judgment of a home buyer's negli | 3 | 2009–2010 |
Davis v. Microsoft Corp.
green
2 sentences2009Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 149 Wn.2d 521, 531 , 70 P.3d 126 (2003). 2007"Substantial evidence" is evidence that is sufficient "`to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of a declared premise.'" Davis, 149 Wash.2d at 531 , 70 P.3d 126 (quoting Helman v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 62 Wash.2d 136, 147 , 381 P.2d 605 (1963)). ¶ 12 Ms. Bull maintains that the Alejandres' tort claims are precluded by the economic loss rule, as the trial court ruled. ¶ 13 The economic loss rule applies to hold parties to their contract remedies when a loss potentially implicates both tort and contract relief. | 3 | 2007–2009 |
| Austin v. Ettl green | 2 | 2013–2014 |
| Alejandre v. Bull green | 2 | 2007–2012 |
| Washington Water Power Co. v. Graybar Electric Co. green | 2 | 2010–2012 |
| State v. Webster neutral | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Fazio green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Duquesne Light Company v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Stiley v. Block green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Ross v. Kirner green | 2 | 2009–2010 |
| Sigman v. Stevens-Norton, Inc. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Stiley v. Block green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Mead v. Park Place Properties green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Affiliated FM Insurance v. LTK Consulting Services Inc. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Stuart v. Weisflog's Showroom Gallery, Inc. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Stanton v. Bayliner Marine Corp. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Comptech Intern., Inc. v. Milam Commerce Park, Ltd. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Cox v. O'BRIEN green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| King v. Rice green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Burg v. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Park Avenue Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Buchan Developments, L.L.C. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc. neutral | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| King v. Rice green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Cox v. O'Brien green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Saddle Mountain Minerals, LLC v. Santiago Homes, Inc. neutral | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.