Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)

Citation: Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)
Parent Document: Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Foundation, Inc., 170 Wash. 2d 380 (2010)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 2010-11-04
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4909141/eastwood-v-horse-harbor-foundation-inc/ ↗

Full Text

757 chars

¶34 However, the concurrence written by Chief Justice Madsen argues that a close look at Alejandre, Atherton, and Stuart will reveal the line between economic loss and property damage. The concurrence states that “[i]n these cases ... the damages sought were economic — consisting of the costs of repairs to correct the defects and to compensate for additional injury to the property itself caused by the defective conditions.” Concurrence (Madsen, C.J.) at 405 (citation omitted). The Madsen concurrence elaborates on its definition of “economic loss” as the failure to “obtain the benefit of the bargain” and observes that in Alejandre, Atherton, and Stuart “the purchased item failed to meet the buyer’s economic expectations because of the defects.” Id.

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text