The Economic Loss Rule: An Under-Utilized But Not-So-Secret Weapon

By on April 3, 2013

In a decision issued on March 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Florida reaffirmed Florida’s commitment to adherence to the economic loss rule in product liability litigation. In Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. etc., et al., No. SC10-1022, the high court provides a helpful discussion of the origin and development of the economic loss rule. In summary, the economic loss rule is described as “the fundamental boundary between contract law, which is designed to enforce the expectancy interests of the parties, and tort law, which imposes a duty of reasonable care and thereby encourages citizens to avoid causing physical harm to others.” Thus, economic loss has been defined by Florida courts as “damage for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits – without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property.” In other words, economic losses are “disappointed economic expectations,” which are protected by contract law, rather than tort law.

Despite the rule’s underpinnings in the product liability context, the economic loss rule has also been applied to circumstances when the parties are in contractual privity and one party seeks to recover damages in tort for damages arising in contract.

In a product liability context, the economic loss rule was developed to protect manufacturers from liability for economic damage caused by a defective product beyond those damages provided by warranty law.  In discussing the development of economic loss rule principles, the Florida Supreme Court analyzed the California Supreme Court’s holding in Seely v. White Motor Co., 403 P.2d 145 (Cal. 1965). In Seely, the California Supreme Court held that the doctrine of strict liability in tort did not supplant causes of action for breach of express warranty.

In that case, the court was confronted with a situation in which plaintiff sought recovery for economic loss resulting from his purchase of a truck that failed to perform according to expectations. The court concluded that the strict liability doctrine was not intended to undermine the warranty provisions of sales or contract law, but was designed to govern the wholly separate and distinct problem of physical injuries caused by defective products. In East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858 (1986), the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of Seely when it considered the issue of economic loss resulting from defective products in the context of admiralty.

According to the Supreme Court, when the damage is to the product itself, “the injury suffered – the failure of the product to function properly – is the essence of a warranty action, through which a contracting party can seek to recoup the benefit of its bargain.” Recognizing that the extending strict product liability law to cover economic damages would result in “contract law… drowning in a sea of tort,” the Supreme Court held that “the manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty either under a negligence or a strict products liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.” Thus, from the outset, the focus of the economic loss rule was directed to damages resulting from defects in the product itself.

In a  Client Alert, dated July 5, 2011, Stites & Harbison lawyers John L. Tate and Cassidy R. Rosenthal wrote about the Kentucky Supreme Court’s adoption of the economic loss rule in Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers (6/18/11). The Court unanimously held that “a manufacturer in a commercial relationship has no duty under a negligence or strict products liability theory to prevent a product from injuring itself.” The Court wrote: “We believe the parties’ allocation of risk by contract should control without disturbance by the courts via product liability theories.”

As discussed by Mr. Tate and Ms. Rosenthal, in Giddings & Lewis, the manufacturer sold a sophisticated machining center to an industrial concern. The parties set forth their mutual obligations in a detailed commercial contract. After seven years of continuous operation, and after the contract’s express warranty expired, the machining center malfunctioned in a spectacular fashion – throwing chunks of steel weighing thousands of pounds across the factory floor. The costs to repair the machining center and to get the business up and running again were almost $3 million. After reimbursing the machine’s owner for its losses, a consortium of insurance companies asserted a subrogation claim against the machining center’s manufacturer. With the warranty expired, the insurance companies sued in negligence, strict liability, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation. What could be more tortious conduct that this?  

Applying the economic loss doctrine, the Kentucky Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Tate holding that the purchaser could not recover from the manufacturer under any tort theory. The consortium was limited to contractual remedies, all of which expired years earlier.

Despite such groundbreaking decisions, is the economic loss rule  under-utilized in products liability and commercial litigation today?  Of course, if personal injury results from an alleged defect, the rule does not apply. However, not infrequently, complaints alleging damages arising from a defective product that purportedly caused economic loss sound in negligence or strict products liability. Are defense lawyers seeking dismissal of these tort claims on the basis of the economic loss rule as often as they should?.
 

Filed under Breach Of Warranty, Cassidy R. Rosenthal, East River Steamship Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., Economic Loss Doctrine, economic loss rule, Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers, John Tate, Product Liabilitiy Litigation, Seely v. White Motor Co, Stites & Harbison, Tiara Condominium Association, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. etc., et al., Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with , , , , ,

Breach Of Warranty & Product Liability Claims Dismissed Against Auto Service Provider

By on April 16, 2012

In 2008, the parents of Sean Reeps, brought suit against BMW, Martin Motor Sales and Hassel Motors (“Hassel”), alleging that Sean’s mother, Debra, was exposed to gasoline fumes in the family’s BMW during her pregancy, which resulted in Sean being born with birth defects. Amarillo motor vehicle accident attorney will work with you in all types of vehicle accidents like Sean’s mother. The Complaint alleged causes of action in (1) negligence; (2) strict products liability; (3) breach of express warranty; and (4) breach of implied warranty (merchantability) . The timeline of events is as follows:

1991-In March and again in November, Reeps bring their 1989 BMW 525i to Hassel Motors, a licensed BMW dealer, to fix an exhaust odor inside the car.  Dealer fails to identiify an exhaust odor in March, but later identifies problem as a split fuel hose and repairs it under warranty.

1992-In May, Sean Reeps is born with birth defects, including cerebral palsy, which plaintiffs  attribute to Debra’s  inhalation of gas fumes early in pregnancy.

1994-BMW recalls BMW525i vehicles due to safety defect that caused odor due to feed fuel hose. Car is no longer with plaintiffs at the time.

On summary judgment, BMW argued that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the doctrine of spoliation because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case without the car or the fuel hose to show the actual alleged defect.  BMW’s expert testified by affidavit that the Reeps’ leakage was caused by a split in the fuel hose, not by the defect that was the subject of the recall.  Thus, in the absence of the actual fuel hose, BMW argued, plaintiff could not demonstrate a defect.

The trial court rejected BMW’s spoliation argument, holding that there was no evidence of “willful or contumacious conduct” by plaintiff in disposing of the car. Remarkably, the Reeps’ BMW was actually found, but clearly not in the same condition as it was in 1991 and, not surprisingly, without the original fuel hose. The trial court held that plaintiff was not “barred from pursuing his claim, but rather he will have the onerous trial burden of proving his case solely by circumstantial evidence.”

New York law requires that to establish a prima facie case for strict product liability or design defect, a plaintiff must show that the manufacturer marketed a product that was not reasonably safe in its design; that it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner; and that the defective design was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injury. When the product at issue is no longer available, and the plaintiff seeks to prove a manufacturing defect by circumstantial evidence, the plaintiff must not only establish that the product did not perform as intended, but must also exclude all other causes of failure not attributable to the manufacturer.

The trial court denied Hassel’s motion for summary judgment. The gravamen for plaintiff’s claims against Hassel was that it was negligent in failing to find the split fuel hose when the Reeps first complained of fuel odor in March 1991. Plaintiffs argued that if Hassel had identified and repaired the problem, Mrs. Reeps would not have inhaled any fumes during her pregnancy. In denying the dealer’s motion for summary judgment, the court observed that there is a high bar for obtaining summary judgment in a negligence action. As the court noted, “Simply put, Hassel must prove that it was not negligent when it failed to find a source of the gas fumes complained of by the Reeps in March 1991. It has not done so.”

In its decision, dated April 5, 2012, the Appellate Division, First Department, weighed in on both the spoliation issue and the motion for summary judgment by Hassel. On the spoliation issue, the Appellate Division held that the defendants “failed to demonstrate that the parents disposed of the vehicle with knowledge of its potential evidentiary value.” Moreover, the court discussed the existence of other available evidence, including BMW’s Recall Bulletin and Hassel Motors-service records for the relevant period, which served to mitigate the loss of the vehicle. Basically, the court examined two of the key factors in evaluating spoliation sanctions – prejudice and intent – and determined that the movants had failed to establish either element in seeking sanctions.

As to plaintiff’s claims against Hassel, the Appellate Division held that the product liability and breach of implied and express warranty claims should be dismissed because the service provider did not design, manufacture, distribute or sell the vehicle. This holding may be the most important in the case because it clarifies that service providers, as opposed to product sellers, can not be held liable under strict product liability or breach of warranty theories of liability. Therefore, the only remaining claim against Hassel sounds in negligence, which may be difficult for plaintiff to establish at trial after a twenty year hiatus.

Apart from its other burdens, plaintiff will have to demonstrate general causation at trial, that is, whether exposure to chemical components in gasoline fumes have been associated in the scientific literature with the specific teratogenic effects alleged, including cerebral palsy. If plaintiff is able to prove general causation, he will then have to prove specific causation, that is, whether the dose of the purported teratogen was high enough, and lasted for a sufficient duration, to cause the specific birth defect.

The plaintiff attributes his injury to Debra Reeps’ inhalation of gas fumes during the first couple of months of her pregnancy between August 1991 and November 1991, when the problem with the vehicle was fixed. Are the alleged teratogenic effects associated with a toxic exposure early in pregnancy? How often did Debra Reeps ride in the automobile during those first couple of months? If the odor problem was significant, is it likely that the Reeps would not have returned their BMW 525i, which was under warranty, to the dealership before November? Because there is no expert deposition discovery under New York state practice, we will have to await trial to learn how these issues plays out.
 

 

Filed under Appellate Division, First Department, Breach Of Warranty, Causation, Sean Repps v. BMW of North America, Inc, Spoliation, Strict Liability, Theories of Liability, Toxic Tort/Product Liability Litigation Tagged with , ,