Schaefer v. IndyMac Mortgage Services

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 district court correctly held that plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claim against a loan servicer arising out of an alleged misrepresentation in a loan modification offer letter was barred by the economic loss doctrine
• explaining that economic loss doctrine generally prevents recovery in tort of purely economic losses associated with a contractual relationship
• noting that New Hampshire recognizes an exception applying to “malpractice-like claims based on the breach of extra-contractual duties arising from the qualifications of licensed professionals”
• stating that “courts in a large number of jurisdictions have read the references to ‘physical harm’ in . . . § 324A . . . as affirmatively precluding recovery for economic losses” (citations omitted)
• noting the narrow scope of the exception and holding that it reaches “only those representations . . . that relate to a transaction other than the one that constitutes the subject of the contract”
• plaintiff’s negligence claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings barred by economic loss doctrine where alleged duties to provide information to plaintiff arise from mortgage agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).