Opinion ID: 2337607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: ¶ 8 The trial court and the Court of Appeals applied the independent duty doctrine, formerly referred to as the economic loss rule, to dismiss Elcon's tort claims. This was a misapplication of the doctrine, though an inconsequential one. Because Elcon's tort claims factually fail, we affirm the Court of Appeals regardless. ¶ 9 The independent duty doctrine is an analytical tool used by the court to maintain the boundary between torts and contract. Eastwood v. Horse Harbor Found., Inc., 170 Wash.2d 380, 416, 241 P.3d 1256 (2010) (Chambers, J., concurring). In Eastwood, we adopted the term independent duty doctrine because it more accurately captured the principle behind the rule: An injury, we held, is remediable in tort if it traces back to the breach of a tort duty arising independently of the terms of the contract. Eastwood, 170 Wash.2d at 389, 241 P.3d 1256. To date, we have applied the doctrine to a narrow class of cases, primarily limiting its application to claims arising out of construction on real property and real property sales. We have done so in each case based upon policy considerations unique to those industries. We have never applied the doctrine as a rule of general application outside of these limited circumstances. Eastwood, 170 Wash.2d at 416, 241 P.3d 1256 (Chambers, J., concurring). Indeed, in Eastwood we directed lower courts not to apply the doctrine to tort remedies unless and until this court has, based upon considerations of common sense, justice, policy and precedent, decided otherwise. Eastwood, 170 Wash.2d at 417, 241 P.3d 1256 (Chambers, J., concurring). ¶ 10 We have not applied the independent duty doctrine to bar a claim for fraud, and we see no basis to utilize it in this case. Even in the real property context, where we have been the least hesitant to apply the doctrine, we have repeatedly recognized a fraud claim to be outside the doctrine's scope, allowing such claims to be decided based on established tort precedent. See Alejandre, 159 Wash.2d at 689-90, 153 P.3d 864; Atherton Condo. Apartment-Owners Ass'n Bd. of Dir. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wash.2d 506, 523-27, 799 P.2d 250 (1990). We find no compelling reason, whether based on common sense, justice, policy, or precedent, to bar Elcon's fraud or tortious interference claim under the independent duty doctrine. The doctrine simply does not apply under these circumstances.