Giddings & Lewis, Inc. v. Industrial Risk Insurers

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that a fraudulent concealment claim “is grounded in a duty to disclose”
• relying on Section 9 to conclude that there is no negligent misrepresentation exception to the economic loss rule in the product liability context
• noting “a majority of our sister courts do not recognize the [calamitous event] exception,” but also disclaiming that “[o]ur position is not a matter of deference to the majority view or the nation’s highest court but rather a matter of logic”
• noting “a majority of our sister courts do not recognize the [calamitous event] exception,” but also disclaiming that “[o]ur position is not a matter of deference to the majority view or the nation’s highest court but rather a matter of logic”
• “Today we hold that the economic loss rule applies to claims arising from a defective product sold in a commercial transaction[.]”
• “Fraud by omission is not the same, at law, as fraud by misrepresentation, and has substantially different elements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).