As simple as the concept of the Economic Loss Rule appears to be, New Jersey’s interpretation of this well-settled doctrine and its corollary, the “integrated product” doctrine, is not at all predictable. Even though the N.J. Supreme Court and Appellate Division have issued significant decisions addressing the doctrine, its status remains unclear. The confusing and sometimes seemingly contradictory results of the cases on this topic present an area of law which begs for further clarification.
This article addresses the roots of the Economic Loss Rule, its purpose, the policies underlying the rule, the integrated product doctrine, and the varying interpretations accorded these doctrines by the N.J. courts, including the N.J. Supreme Court’s failure to apply the rule under certain facts.
History and Purpose of the 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This content has been archived.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]
