Filak v. George

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “whatever duties [insurance agent] may have assumed arose solely from the parties’ alleged oral contract” for agent to procure coverage on plaintiffs’ behalf
• explaining that “injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of the obligation” is an element of any action for breach of contract
• finding that plaintiffs failed to assert a valid claim of constructive fraud because the only duties assumed “arose solely from the parties’ alleged oral contract”
• explaining that the elements of breach of contract are “(1) a legally enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s violation or breach of that obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation”
• concluding the economic loss rule bars constructive fraud claims
• “[L]osses suffered as a result of the breach of a duty assumed only by agreement, rather than a duty imposed by law, remain the sole province of the law of contracts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).