lan/stv, a Joint Venture of Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, Inc. and Stv Incorporated v. Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that the “law has long limited the recovery of purely economic damages in an action for negligence,” where the economic loss was caused by negligence in the performance of a contract between the parties
• concluding economic-loss rule precluded general contractor from recovering delay damages from owner’s architect, although contractor and architect were contractual strangers, because economic losses should be allocated by contract where feasible
• finding that the economic loss rule applicable in a context in which “[i]t makes sense to let the parties bargain about [who should bear the risk of loss] rather than impose a ‘legal solution”
• noting that professional malpractice claims are not barred by the economic loss doctrine, regardless of the existence of a contract, and stating that “the application of the rule depends on an analysis of its rationales in a particular situation”
• identifying legal malpractice as an exception to the doctrine because “agreements regarding legal representation are not required in Texas,... and until relatively recently have not been the norm”
• applying economic loss rule and holding that contractor could not recover from architect in tort when contractor was unsatisfied with the contract damages he recovered 24 Mgmt., Inc. v. Dynex Com., Inc., 348 S.W.3d 894, 901–02 (Tex. 2011) (recognizing Restatement (Second

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).