About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [i] (Fall 2023)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts0023 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2023 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS § 3. Preclusion of Tort Liability Arising from Contract (Economic-Loss Rule) Cal.App.2022. Quot. in sup.; com. (d) quot. in sup. Car purchasers sued car manufacturer, alleging, inter alia, that defendant fraudulently induced plaintiffs into purchasing a vehicle from defendant by concealing defects in the vehicle's transmission system. The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer. This court reversed and remanded, holding that the trial court erred in finding that the economic-loss rule barred plaintiffs' fraudulent-inducement claim. Citing Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm §§ 3 and 9, the court explained that claims arising from fraud were exceptions to the rule barring certain tort claims arising between contractual parties, and the fraud exception did not require plaintiffs to allege that defendant made affirmative misrepresentations. Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc., 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 715, 722, 727. § 6. Negligent Performance of Services D.Neb.2022. Quot. in sup. Insured sued insurer, alleging that defendant failed to implement proper security policies for the personally-identifiable information of its customers, resulting in plaintiff's information being obtained for illegal uses by third parties after defendant suffered a data breach from a phishing attempt. This court denied in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiff alleged a claim for negligence, because defendant owed plaintiff a duty to exercise care regarding personally- identifiable information it collected from customers. The court explained that, under Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 6, defendant had a pecuniary interest in gathering plaintiff's information as part of its business, and it failed to take reasonable care in conducting its business by failing to secure its database from phishing scams. Weisenberger v. Ameritas Mutual Holding Company, 597 F.Supp.3d 1351, 1360, 1361. § 8. Public Nuisance Resulting in Economic Loss N.D.Ohio, 2022. Cit. but dist.; coms. (a) and (g) quot. but dist. In multidistrict litigation, two counties in Ohio sued pharmacies for allegedly engaging in intentional or illegal conduct that was a substantial factor in causing a public nuisance in the counties, namely, oversupply of legal prescription opioids and diversion of those opioids into the illicit market outside appropriate medical channels. After a jury found in favor of counties, this court denied pharmacies' motions for judgment as a matter of law. The court rejected pharmacies' argument that counties' claims were barred by the economic-loss doctrine, explaining that pharmacies' reliance on Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 8 COPYRIGHT ©2023 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most