Summary
The Supreme Court of Indiana addresses whether the economic loss doctrine bars tort recovery for damage arising from a defective construction service. It holds that the doctrine applies regardless of whether the transaction is governed by the Products Liability Act or the Uniform Commercial Code, but permits tort recovery for damage to separately acquired property other than the defective product or service itself. The court reverses summary judgment on the negligence claim and remands for further proceedings.
Holdings
- Damages recoverable in tort for a defective product or service are governed by the economic loss doctrine regardless of whether the transaction is subject to the Indiana Products Liability Act, the Uniform Commercial Code, or both.
- Under Indiana's economic loss doctrine, property acquired separately from the defective good or service is other property, even if it is incorporated into the same physical object.
- The economic loss doctrine barred tort recovery for damage to the stone facade itself but did not bar tort recovery for damage to the home and its components allegedly caused by negligent installation of the separately acquired facade.
Questions Presented
- Whether the economic loss doctrine governs tort damages arising from a defective service or product outside a transaction governed by the Products Liability Act or the Uniform Commercial Code.
- Whether damage to portions of a home caused by the allegedly negligent installation of a separately acquired stone facade constitutes damage to other property recoverable in tort.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the Gunkels' negligence claim.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (19)
- Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 797 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)(reversed)
- Gunkel v. Renovations, Inc., 812 N.E.2d 799 (Ind. 2004)(followed procedurally)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Lovold Co., 705 N.E.2d 981 (Ind. 1998)(followed)
- Colonial Penn Ins. v. Guzorek, 690 N.E.2d 664 (Ind. 1997)(followed)
- Rosi v. Bus. Furniture Corp., 615 N.E.2d 431 (Ind. 1993)(followed)
- Estate of Shebel v. Yaskawa Elec. Am., Inc., 713 N.E.2d 275 (Ind. 1999)(followed)
- Miller v. United States Steel Corp., 902 F.2d 573 (7th Cir. 1990)(persuasive)
- Reed v. Central Soya Co., Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind. 1993)(followed)
- Martin Rispens & Son v. Hall Farms, Inc., 621 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. 1993)(followed)
- Progressive Insurance Co. v. General Motors Corp., 749 N.E.2d 484 (Ind. 2001)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 19.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…