ILNews

Justices address economic loss rule in 2 opinions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In two separate rulings involving the “economic loss rule,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against a library seeking to hold subcontractors and an engineer responsible for negligence, and in favor of a bank in its tort claim against a title company.

In Indianapolis-Marion County Public Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., et al., No. 06S05-0907-CV-332, the justices dealt the library a blow in its attempt to recover damages for repair costs and other fees because of a delay in the construction of the Central Library in Indianapolis. Construction was delayed after problems were discovered in the concrete used for the parking garage and foundation of the library. The library brought a lawsuit against the architect, general contractor, and various subcontractors for negligence. The library settled with the architect and general contractor, with whom it had a contractual relationship.

The trial court granted the remaining defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding the negligence claims were barred by the economic loss rule. The Indiana Court of Appeals majority affirmed.

In the IMCPL case, the justices extensively examined the economic loss rule and held that it applies in the instant case. The library is connected with the defendants through a network or chain of contracts in which the parties allocated their respective risks, duties, and remedies, and those contracts - not negligence law - govern the outcome of the library’s claims, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan.

“From the outset of the project, the Library looked to a series of contracts to establish the relative expectations of the parties. And reliance on contract law in this regard is perhaps greater in construction projects than any other industry,  …” wrote the justice.

The Supreme Court also emphasized that the economic loss rule operates as a general rule to preclude recovery in tort for economic loss and does so only for purely economic loss. There are exceptions to the general rule, but those don’t apply in the library’s case.
 
But one of those exceptions does apply in the case of U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Integrity Land Title Corp., No. 17S03-1002-CV-120, which is a case of first impression. The issue is whether or not a title company, after issuing an incorrect title commitment on which the lender relied to its detriment, owes a duty in tort to the recipient to which it certified clear title to the subject real property.

The facts of this case fit within the tort of negligent misrepresentation, so applicable tort law allows U.S. Bank’s tort claim to go forward, the justices ruled.

A buyer of real property got a mortgage from lender Texcorp Mortgage Bankers, who prior to lending the money, contracted with Integrity Land Title Corp. to prepare a title commitment, close the mortgage, and provide the company with an insured first and superior mortgage lien against the subject real property. Integrity’s search uncovered no judgments against the seller of the real property, but the search failed to show a 1998 foreclosure judgment from LPP mortgage.

U.S. Bank, as successor of Texcorp’s interests, intervened in LPP’s action to foreclose the 1998 judgment lien. The bank asserted claims against Integrity of breach of contract and tort of negligent real estate closing. The trial court found Integrity wasn’t in breach of contract and not negligent because it owed no duty to U.S. Bank in tort. The two parties did not have a contract.

Justice Sullivan noted that the existence or non-existence of a contract is not the dispositive factor for determining whether a tort action is allowable where special circumstances and overriding public polices have created exceptions.

Integrity should have known that Texcorp would act in justifiable reliance on the statement in the preliminary commitment that the title was free and clear. The relationship between Integrity and Texcorp was of an advisory nature and Integrity deliberately provided specific information in response to a request by Texcorp to guide Texcorp into its transaction with a third party. Integrity also affirmatively vouched for the accuracy of the information.

 Based on this, applicable tort law allows U.S. Bank’s tort claim to go forward.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT