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

1,313 chars

The Association further relies on the professional services exception to argue that the
economic loss rule is inapplicable to preclude their tort claims. Plaintiff maintains that since
Defendants provided professional services that resulted in property damage to the foreseeable
end-user of their services - the Association - the exception should apply and overcome any
limitations on their tort claims imposed by the economic loss rule. According to the Association,
based on Vermont’s strong public policy favoring the protection of consumer home buyers, the
Vermont Supreme Court would likely uphold such an exception in construction defect cases with
respect to negligent architects and general contractors. Additionally, Plaintiff cites to precedent
from other states holding that a contractor could sue an architect for negligence notwithstanding
the lack of a contractual relationship because the contractor’s reliance on the architectural plans
was foreseeable. See Eastern Steel Constructors, Inc. v. City of Salem, 549 S.E.2d 266 (W.V.
2001); Ins. Co. of America v. Town of Manchester, 17 F.Supp.2d 81, 86-87 (D. Conn. 1998).
Nevertheless, the Court finds no exception applicable where there was no special relationship
between the parties which might otherwise confer an independent duty on Defendants.

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text