 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Midland Builders7/14/2005
rs are satisfied that Midland's repairs made them whole. But, as Semco points out, what if some homeowners are concerned that Midland's modifications are insufficient and subsequently seek replacement windows from Semco? What if a homeowner discovers that water infiltration caused by Semco windows leaked into a basement and damaged valuable stored property? Suppose a contractor hired directly by a homeowner to repair damage caused by a Semco window injured himself while repairing damage, but has yet to come forward with a claim. Finally, suppose a homeowner is simply unconvinced that the defective Semco windows will not fail again and cause damage in the future. Why could such homeowners not successfully sue Semco? We agree with Semco that it does not take much imagination to think of scenarios in which Semco might be subject to claims, despite Midland's repairs and warranty. Midland does not dispel such scenarios
The question is not whether Midland's actions substantially protected Semco from homeowner lawsuits. Midland itself does not argue that substantial protection is sufficient. Rather, the question is whether Midland completely assumed all future liability Semco might have. So far as we can tell, this could have been accomplished by an assignment of rights--Midland could have offered to repair the damage if the homeowners assigned to Midland any rights they might have with regard to Semco. Midland did not obtain such assignments and has not demonstrated that it has otherwise assumed all future liability Semco might have.
In sum, Wausau Tile precludes Midland's request for damages for costs in making repairs and settling claims or anticipated claims of homeowners. Wausau Tile also plainly precludes Midland's damages for lost profits. See Wausau Tile, 226 Wis. 2d at 257.
C. Midland's Reliance on Bay Breeze Is Misplaced
We briefly discuss one additional economic loss doctrine case that Midland relies on, Bay Breeze Condominium Ass'n, 257 Wis. 2d 511, to explain why this case does not cast doubt on our conclusion that Wausau Tile requires dismissal of Midland's tort claims.
In Bay Breeze, a condominium association sued a window manufacturer, alleging that negligently designed windows in condominium units resulted in water damage to the units. Id., . The association maintained that the damage to areas surrounding the windows fell under the "other property" exception to the economic loss doctrine. Id. We concluded that the damage caused to portions of the units adjoining the defective windows did not fall within the "other property" exception to the economic loss doctrine. Id., . Viewing the windows as a component of the condominium homes, we explained: " he economic loss doctrine applies to building construction defects when ... the defective product is a component part of an integrated structure or finished product." Id., . Nonetheless, Midland points to what it believes is helpful language in Bay Breeze.
In Bay Breeze, we quoted with approval the following language from a Florida case:
"Generally, house buyers have little or no interest in how or where the individual components of a house are obtained. They are content to let the builder produce the finished product, i.e., a house. These [Florida] homeowners bought finished products--dwellings--not the individual components of those dwellings. They bargained for the finished products, not their various components. The concrete became an integral part of the finished product and, thus, did not injure 'other' property."
Id., (quoting Casa Clara Condo. Ass'n v. Charley Toppino & Sons, 620 So. 2d 1244, 1247 (Fla. 1993)). The Casa Clara court re
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|