Cash & Carry America, Inc. v. Roof Solutions, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the economic loss doctrine did not bar a negligence claim against a contractor by a third party where the risk of harm was personal injury and property damage
• holding the economic loss doctrine did not preclude a corporation’s negligence action against a roofing contractor and subcontractor when the ‘corporation’s personal property was damaged in a fire caused by'a subcontractor’s negligent use of a torch while replacing a roof
• permitting recovery for defendant’s misuse of a torch in performing the roof replacement work, resulting in the roof catching fire
• describing the doctrine as “a boundary between contract law, the purpose of which is to enforce the expectations of the parties to an agreement, and tort law, the purpose of which is to protect people and property from foreseeable risks of harm”
• subcontractor subject to liability for fire on homeowner’s roof that exposed homeowners to risk of severe physical injury
• “[T]he holding in Jacques and the ‘economic loss doctrine’ are not one and the same.”’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).