 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Huls Am.6/9/1998
liability claimant to recover "economic loss that proximately resulted from the defective aspect of the product," such recovery is limited to those claimants entitled to recover compensatory damages pursuant to R.C. 2307.73 or 2307.78. Compensatory damages in a product liability claim are those damages resulting from "death, physical injury to person, emotional distress, or physical damage to property other than the product involved, that allegedly arose from" the defect in the product. R.C. 2307.71(M). Westfield has not alleged compensatory damages pursuant to R.C. 2307.71(M) and therefore is not entitled to recover economic damages pursuant to R.C. 2307.79.
The Chemtrol court held that for "actions sounding in negligence, ` he well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who has suffered only economic loss due to another's negligence has not been injured in a manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.'" Id., 42 Ohio St.3d at 44, 537 N.E.2d at 630. In the "absence of injury to persons or damage to other property the [plaintiff] may not recover for economic losses premised on tort theories of strict liability or negligence." Id. at 51, 537 N.E.2d at 635.
R.C. 2307.72(C) provides:
"Any [claim for] recovery of compensatory damages for economic loss based on a claim that is asserted in a civil action, other than a product liability claim, is nossubject to sections 2307.71 to 2307.79 of the Revised Code, but may occur under the common law of this state or other applicable sections of the Revised Code."
Although a cause of action may concern a product, it is not a product liability claim within the purview of Ohio's product liability statutes unless it alleges damages other than economic ones, and a failure to allege other than economic damages does not destroy the claim, but rather removes it from the purview of those statutes. Lapuma, supra. In order "to recover indirect economic damages in a negligence action, the plaintiff must prove that the indirect economic damages arose from physical injury to person or from tangible * * * property damage." Queen City Terminals, Inc. v. Gen. Am, Transp. Co. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 609, 653 N.E.2d 661, syllabus. Westfield has not shown loss or damage arising from physical injury to person or from tangible property damage, and therefore the doctrine of strict liability in tort is not available for the recovery of appellants' purely economic losses. Chendrol, 42 Ohio St.3d at 4445, 537 N.E.2d at 629-631. Appellants' causes of action for purely economic damages are not ones that may be brought in a negligence action, and they fail on this ground. Id. at 40, 537 N.E.2d at 626-627.
This court finds that Westfield's claim is one for purely economic damages and therefore is not a proper claim under the product liability statutes. R.C. 2307.71(M). The trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in dismissing Westfield's actions brought on those grounds or in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment against appellants' product liability claims.
Westfield further alleges that HULS negligently failed to warn the mall tenants of the defective nature of the TROCAL roof. HULS was informed of the defect in the TROCAL roofing system sometime in September 1990 through a roofing industry warning, and UAP discovered the defect through an independent evaluation of the roof on March 16, 1992. The roof shattered and failed on January 17, 1994. Westfield alleges that HULS was under a duty to warn UAP of the defect and that the tenants would have been beneficiaries of any warning that HULS should have given to UAP. Appellants contend that HULS owed a duty to warn the mall tenants, as well as warn UAP, of the
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|