The fact pattern is all too common in complex commercial construction cases: Following extensive negotiations, an owner and a contractor execute an integrated contract addressing the parties’ various rights and obligations and attach a schedule identifying a date of completion. No sooner than the ink dries do the construction problems become apparentlabor and materials shortages, deficient construction, necessary rework. It is soon obvious that the contractor will not meet the schedule, and the owner suspects it never could. The project limps along toward completion with the parties eyeing litigation.
Eventually, the owner sues the contractor for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligence. Discovery confirms the owner’s hunch that at the time the parties executed the contract, the schedule date was at best aspirational and at worst utterly impossible, and the contractor knew it. But the contractor-turned-defendant is not worried about the owner’s claimsthe contract contains favorable limitations on liability, a liquidated-damages clause, and a merger clause, and the economic loss rule will protect him from the owner’s tort claims. Or will it?
The Economic Loss Rule
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
