Avoiding Tort Liability in Design, Construction, and Inspection of Commercial Projects
Publication year | 2005 |
Pages | 81 |
2005, January, Pg. 81. Avoiding Tort Liability in Design, Construction, and Inspection of Commercial Projects
Vol. 34, No. 1, Pg. 81
The Colorado Lawyer
January 2005
Vol. 34, No. 1 [Page 81]
January 2005
Vol. 34, No. 1 [Page 81]
Specialty Law Columns
Construction Law Forum
Avoiding Tort Liability in Design, Construction, and Inspection of Commercial Projects
by Elizabeth A. Phelan
Construction Law Forum
Avoiding Tort Liability in Design, Construction, and Inspection of Commercial Projects
by Elizabeth A. Phelan
This column is sponsored by the CBA Construction Law Forum
Committee. The column addresses various construction-related
issues in both public and private areas. The column editor
and Committee encourage the submission of substantive law
articles addressing issues of interest to practitioners in
the field of construction law
Column Editor
James W. Bain of Benjamin, Bain & Howard, L.L.C
Greenwood Village - (303) 290-6600, jamesbain@bbhlegal.com
Elizabeth A. Phelan
About The Author:
This month's article was written by Elizabeth A. Phelan,
Denver, a partner with Holland & Hart LLP - (303)
295-8087, ephelan@hollandhart.com.
This article examines a recent Colorado Supreme Court
decision applying the economic loss rule, BRW, Inc. v.
Dufficy & Sons, Inc., and its implications for parties
engaged in the construction industry in Colorado.
In 2004, in BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc.,1 the
Colorado Supreme Court held that a subcontractor on a
commercial construction project may not sue the design
engineer in tort for the subcontractor's alleged economic
losses on the project. The BRW decision turns on a doctrine
known as the "economic loss rule" and underscores
the importance of this doctrine for parties who are
negotiating, drafting, or signing contracts for commercial
construction projects.
This article provides an overview of the economic loss rule
in the context of commercial construction projects.2 It
discusses the BRW case and explains its implications for
parties in the construction industry as they negotiate the
duties, rights, and remedies that will govern their working
relationships.
Overview of Economic Loss Rule
The economic loss rule is triggered when a party to a
contract (1) claims that he or she has sustained financial
loss or has not realized the full profit expected in
performing the contract; and (2) asserts tort claims to
recover these alleged economic losses. This strategy may be
an attractive course because tort law permits a more
expansive measure of damages than contract law.
Under tort law, an injured party can recover all damages
proximately caused by the wrongful act. By contrast, contract
law permits recovery only for damages that were reasonably
foreseeable at the time of the breach.3 In addition, a tort
theory of recovery may support a claim for punitive damages,
if the conduct required for this remedy is present, while a
contract theory of recovery does not.4
However, allowing tort recovery in these circumstances blurs
the distinction between contract and tort law and encourages
contracting parties to resort to tort law when they are
disappointed by the outcome of their contractual
undertakings. By prohibiting tort claims in these
circumstances, the economic loss rule protects the boundary
between tort and contract law and assures that a party cannot
obtain through tort law a recovery not permitted under
contract law.
In two seminal decisions, Town of Alma v. AZCO Construction
Inc.5 and Grynberg v. Agri Tech, Inc.,6 the Colorado Supreme
Court formulated the economic loss rule. In those cases, the
Court held that a party who sustains only economic loss from
the breach of a contractual duty cannot sue in tort for that
breach unless the breaching party owes the injured party an
independent duty of care under tort law.7
For instance, in Town of Alma, a town and landowners brought
negligence claims against the installer of the town's
water distribution system, seeking to recover costs of repair
and replacement of defective lines, which were not otherwise
recoverable under the contract. The Colorado Supreme Court
held that the alleged duties of care were not independent of
the contract and that the economic loss rule therefore barred
the tort claims.8
Similarly, in Grynberg, investors in a cattle investment
program who realized less than their expected rate of return
brought tort claims against the managers of the program,
claiming that the managers' negligence caused the
financial losses. Again, the Supreme Court held that the
alleged tort duty of care was "created by, and
completely contained in, the contractual provisions."9
Because the defendants owed no independent duty of care to
the plaintiffs, the economic loss rule precluded the tort
claims.
In BRW, the Court applied the...
To continue reading
Request your trial