3.8.17 Conclusion

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

In cases where the plaintiff and the defendant have no direct contractual relationship, the ELR has no applicability under Arizona jurisprudence. Donnelly, is alive and well; Carstens, if extant at all, is barely on life support. As it applies to construction law, the application of the ELR in Arizona is now well-defined and well-reasoned, consistent with its original, underlying purpose and with Arizona’s historical deference to sanctity of contract. If there is any remaining uncertainty, it lies in the potential application of the “integrated system” principle to negligence claims, by owners against subcontractors. Otherwise, the Economic Loss Rule precludes a claimant in privity with the defendant from recovering in tort economic damages, unless accompanied by physical harm, either in the form of personal injury or property damage.

Cases

1800 Ocotillo, LLC v. WLB Group, Inc., 219, 200, 196 P.3d 222 (2008)................................ 3.8-1, 2, 8

Blecick v. Sch. Dist. No. 18 of Cochise County, 2 Ariz. App. 115, 406 P.2d 750 (Ct. App. 1966) 3.8-15

Carstens v. City of Phoenix, 206 Ariz. 123, 75 P.3d 1081 (Ct. App. 2003)............................... 3.8-11, 16

City of Tucson v. Koerber, 82 Ariz. 347, 313 P.2d 411 (1957)................................................................ 3.8-9

Colberg v. Relinger, 160 Ariz. 42, 770 P.2d 346 (Ct. App. 1988)................................................ 3.8-11, 16

Continental Nat’l Bank v. Evans, 107 Ariz. 378, 489 P.2d 15 (1971).................................................. 3.8-6

Darner Motor Sales v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 383, 682 P.2d 388 (1984)............ 3.8-9

Donnelly Constr. Co. v. Oberg, 139 Ariz. 184, 677 P.2d 1292 (1984).......................................... 3.8-15, 16

East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858...