Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (48)

Full Text

1,629 chars
The Court is not convinced that this exception is available here. The undisputed facts
demonstrate that there was no accident, injury, or collapse of any structure on the property. The
Association’s president alleges that due to flaws in the design and construction of elements
comprising the Treetop development, large amounts of water runs off and accumulates on
roadways, causing serviceability problems, including buildup of ice, which in turn creates
dangerous conditions for passage by users either in cars or on foot. Stoltz Aff. ¶ 17.
Notwithstanding these allegations, the damages claimed by the Association are still largely for
the costs to repair the construction defects and all of the consequential losses that arose from
those defects, absent any claim for personal injury or significant collateral property damage.
Indeed, the Vermont Supreme Court, has held that “warranty law would, in effect, be subsumed
into tort law” if the court were to allow recovery for purely economic losses absent any physical
harm based solely on claims that an alleged defect could have endangered persons or their
property. Paquette, 168 Vt. at 264 (denying the availability of purely economic damages under
theories of strict liability in the defective motor home context) (emphasis added). Accordingly,
without deciding whether the unreasonably dangerous condition exception to the economic loss
rule is in fact recognized by Vermont’s law, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is unable to put
forth facts establishing the prerequisites to such an exception. II. Contract Claims a. Breach of Implied Warranty of Habitability Claim