New Jersey federal courts actively utilize the “economic loss doctrine” to weed out tort claims where the legal obligations at issue are established by the parties’ direct contractual relationship. See SRC Construction Corp. of Monroe v. Atlantic City Hous. Auth., 935 F. Supp. 2d 796, 800-01 (D.N.J. 2013) (where the court predicted that the New Jersey Supreme Court would not apply the doctrine to a situation in which the parties did not have a direct contractual relationship).
Generally, the doctrine provides that where the scope of liability is defined by the obligations assumed in a contract, remedies in tort are not available, unless an independent duty is also owed. Saltiel v. GSI Consult., 170 N.J. 297, 316 (2002). Unlike their federal counterparts, New Jersey state courts infrequently apply the doctrine. However, the recent application of the doctrine by New Jersey federal courts in financial services cases may breathe new life into the defense.
Origin of the Economic Loss Doctrine
This content has been archived.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]
