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

959 chars

¶55 Second, the term “economic damages” in the independent duty context is linguistic sophistry. I agree with the lead opinion that it was a misnomer. See Rich Prods. Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc., 66 F. Supp. 2d 937, 968 (E.D. Wis. 1999), aff’d, 241 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2001); Miller v. U.S. Steel Corp., 902 F.2d 573, 574 (7th Cir. 1990). The misnomer was unfortunate because any injury or damage that could be expressed in a dollar figure could also be thought to be an economic loss presumptively excludable under the doctrine. Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674, 693, 153 P.3d 864 (2007) (Chambers, J., concurring). The words “economic loss rule” unfortunately gave the impression of a rule of general application; that anytime there is an economic loss, there would not be recovery in tort. But the terms “economic loss” and “economic damages” are much more expansive than the meaning encompassed by the term. For example, the Washington legislature declared that

Other Sections in This Document (97)

Full Text