Carlotti v. Employees of General Electric Federal Credit Union No. 1161

How courts have described this case

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

• holding no duty arose under § 323 of the Restatement where harm alleged was purely financial
• dismissing plaintiffs claim that credit union, which undertook to provide insurance, negligently Med to advise him of limitations of insurance, because no physical harm resulted
• “We have been unable to find any binding decision that would impose a duty under § 323 where the harm alleged is merely financial. Indeed, the existing cases would suggest that economic harm is not a basis for recovery.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).