Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C.

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that the economic loss rule barred the Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library's negligence claims against subcontractors and an engineer involved in a library renovation project. Because the parties were connected through an integrated network of construction contracts allocating risks, duties, and remedies, the court concluded that contract law governed the Library's claimed repair costs and related economic losses. The court rejected arguments based on other property, imminent risk of personal injury, professional status, and the provision of services.

Holdings

1. There is no tort liability to the owner of a major construction project for pure economic loss caused unintentionally by contractors, subcontractors, engineers, design professionals, or others engaged in the project when the owner is connected to them through a network or chain of contracts, regardless of technical privity.
2. The alleged damage to the parking garage and other portions of the renovation project was damage to the integrated library facility that the Library purchased, not damage to 'other property'; therefore, the other-property exception to the economic loss rule did not apply.
3. An imminent risk of personal injury, without actual personal injury or damage to other property, does not remove purely economic losses from the economic loss rule.
4. The economic loss rule applies to products and services alike and, on the facts presented, was not displaced by the defendants' status as engineers or design professionals or by the Library's negligent-misrepresentation theory.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the economic loss rule barred the Library's negligence claims against engineers, design professionals, and subcontractors involved in a major construction project when the Library suffered only economic loss.
2. Whether repair and reconstruction costs constituted damage to 'other property' outside the economic loss rule.
3. Whether an imminent risk of personal injury permitted tort recovery despite the absence of personal injury.
4. Whether the economic loss rule should not apply because the defendants were professionals, allegedly made negligent misrepresentations, or provided services rather than tangible products.

Disposition

affirmed