 |
|
 |
| Vol. 2006-07 | July, 2006 |
Economic Loss Rule
|
The Supreme Court of Ohio, in its recent consideration of the application of the Economic Loss Rule, held in the
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT: "Under the economic-loss rule, privity or a sufficient nexus that could serve as a substitute for privity may impose only those contractual duties and liability for breach of those duties agreed to by the parties to the contract, and no more. Mere knowledge by the subcontractor of the identity of the project owner, without more, does not create a nexus sufficient to establish privity or its substitute." The Court's opinion further elaborated: {¶ 1} Today we are called upon to decide whether the economic-loss rule bars a building project owner from recovery of purely economic damages in tort against a subcontractor, based upon breach of contractually created duties. We find that it does. {¶ 6} The economic-loss rule generally prevents recovery in tort of damages for purely economic loss. See Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 45, 537 N.E.2d 624; Floor Craft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Parma Community Gen. Hosp. Assn. (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 560 N.E.2d 206. " `[T]he well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another's negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.' " Chemtrol, 42 Ohio St.3d at 44, 537 N.E.2d 624, quoting Nebraska Innkeepers, Inc. v. Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp. (Iowa 1984), 345 N.W.2d 124, 126. See, also, Floor Craft, 54 Ohio St.3d at 3, 560 N.E.2d 206. This rule stems from the recognition of a balance between tort law, designed to redress losses suffered by breach of a duty |
imposed by law to protect societal interests, and contract law, which holds that "parties to a commercial transaction should remain free to govern their own affairs." Chemtrol, 42 Ohio St.3d at 42, 537
N.E.2d 624. See, also, Floor Craft, 54 Ohio St.3d at 7, 560 N.E.2d 206, quoting Sensenbrenner v. Rust, Orling & Neale
Architects, Inc. (1988), 236 Va. 419, 425, 374 S.E.2d 55. " `Tort law is not designed to compensate parties for losses
suffered as a result of a breach of duties assumed only by agreement. That type of compensation necessitates an analysis
of the damages which were within the contemplation of the parties when framing their agreement. It remains the
particular province of the law of contracts.' " Floor Craft, 54 Ohio St.3d at 7, 560 N.E.2d 206, quoting Sensenbrenner,
236 Va. at 425, 374 S.E.2d 55. Corporex Dev. & Constr. Mgt., Inc. v. Shook, Inc., 106 Ohio St.3d 412, 414,
2005-Ohio-5409. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835-1910) AUTHOR / EDITOR: J. NORMAN STARK is an Attorney-at-Law, a Registered Architect, (AIA, NCARB) Registered Landscape Architect, Interior Designer, Planner and Senior Appraiser (ASA), admitted to practice law before the Bar of Ohio, the US District Courts, Ohio and Illinois (Central Dist.), the US Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. He is a Mediator, Arbitrator and Litigator with experience in Business, Construction, and Public Works, and with additional experience in Real Estate, Construction-Legal Project and Crisis Management, and as an Expert Witness. His office is in Cleveland, Ohio. |