Eysoldt v. ProScan Imaging

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that that the economic loss doctrine “applies only in negligence cases, not in cases involving intentional torts”
• finding that “the law has changed” to allow claims for conversion of “identifiable intangible property rights” including domain names and email accounts
• finding no Ohio cases specifically addressing the issue, but noting that federal courts interpreting Ohio law have held that the economic-loss doctrine does not apply to intentional torts
• economic loss rule did not bar plaintiffs tort claims where the defendant’s conduct “went beyond the failure to perform promises contained in the contract”
• permitting action for conversion of web account as intangible property
• “At common law, the general rule was that only tangible chattels could be converted. But the law has changed, and courts have held that identifiable intangible property rights can also be converted.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).