Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• predicting that Pennsylvania Supreme Court would find that economic loss doctrine does not preclude owner of warehouse from bringing tort claim against manufacturer of warehouse for inventory damaged as result of faulty structure
• allowing the plaintiff, who purchased a warehouse, to recover in tort from the manufacturer of the warehouse for damage caused to plaintiffs inventory when the warehouse collapsed
• preengineered warehouse collapsed and caused damage to warehouse’s contents; without applying a risk of harm analysis or commercial expectation test; held: purchaser can recover in tort for loss of its inventory and other property stored in warehouse
• “‘[T]he product’ is no more and no less than whatever the manufacturer placed in the stream of commerce . . .” (citing Saratoga Fishing Co. v. J.M. Martinac & Co., 520 U.S. 875, 879 (1997)
• the original economic loss doctrine “provided that no cause of action could be maintained in tort for negligence or strict liability where the only injury was ‘economic loss’ — that is, loss that is neither physical injury nor damage to tangible property”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).