Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)

Citation: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Parent Document: Treetop at Stratton Condo. Ass'n v. Treetop Dev. Co. (2011)
Jurisdiction: Vermont (state)
Effective Date: 2011-02-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4489923/treetop-at-stratton-condo-assn-... ↗

Full Text

1,188 chars

In multiple cases, the Vermont Supreme Court, as well as this Court, have applied the
economic loss doctrine to disallow claims of economic loss to third parties absent privity of
contract. See Hamill v. Pawtucket Mut. Ins. Co., 179 Vt. 250, 253 (2005) (plaintiff insured’s
negligence claim against insurance adjuster for physical damage to property deemed purely
economic losses recoverable under contract law and not tort); Springfield Hydroelectric, 172 Vt.
311 (economic loss rule applied despite lack of privity between owners of commercial
hydroelectric facilities and employees of designated purchasing agent); see also Mount Snow v.
Grand Summit Resort Props., Inc., No.564-12-03 Wmcv (Vt. Super. Ct. Mar.1, 2007) (Wesley,
J.) (economic loss rule applied to bar tort claims by a condominium owner’s association against
design professional despite lack of a contractual relationship). To be sure, the Supreme Court has
yet to be presented squarely with the issue of whether privity is a prerequisite to the application
of the doctrine in the construction/design defect context. However, courts of other states have
considered the issue, and their decisions provide useful guidance.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text