Not exact matches
The Appellate Court addressed the common comparison between home inspectors and doctors, lawyers, and other licensed professionals this way: «So too, certain professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, and accountants have been found liable
under both
tort and contract theories for
economic losses causes by misrepresentations during contractual relationships.
As previously noted, the conduct that gives rise to a claim for interference with contractual relations or prospective
economic advantage may be independently actionable
under other
tort theories.
The court held that because the plaintiff did not claim
economic damage for the loss of the shirt, the breach of warranty claims were based in
tort, and were therefore part of the products liability claim
under the Indiana Products Liability Act (IPLA).
In private civil actions
under the Competition Act, «
economic torts» are commonly plead together with allegations of breaches of the Competition Act.
Court held that insurer did not owe a duty to defend,
under a commercial general liability policy, where third - party action sought incidental emotional distress damages caused by the insured's noncovered
economic or business
torts.
The
economic loss doctrine bars a plaintiff from recovering certain money damages
under a
tort theory (e.g. negligence, products liability, property damage, etc.) where a contract defines his relationship with a defendant.
If the appeals in OBG and / or Mainstream had succeeded, then liability in
economic tort would thereafter have depended not upon proof of a subjective intention to break contracts but upon some objective standard similar to that applied
under the law of negligence.
The loss of a child's service was not a necessary element of the
tort, and a parent with legal custody and visitation rights
under court order at the time of abduction is not required to plead or prove that he or she has suffered an
economic loss due to the abduction and harboring of the child.