Opinion ID: 146973
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Response

Text: Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Plaintiff's claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine. Although they did not dispute that they were licensed professionals and that they provided professional services, they contended that, under Vermont law, the professional services exception does not apply in the absence of contractual privity between a plaintiff and defendant. Supp. A. 11. Plaintiff responded that contractual privity is not a prerequisite of the professional services exception. Rather, it argued, the professional licensure of the defendant ... and the foreseeability of the plaintiff's injury are the only two factors that the Vermont Supreme Court has endorsed as determinative. Supp. A. 27. Both of these factors, Plaintiff argued, were present: Defendants were professionally licensed, and it was foreseeable that Hunt would be injured if the Defendants did not perform their contractual duties with the degree of skill and care required of professionals in their respective fields because their contractual obligations to the Owner were inextricably intertwined with Hunt's. Supp. A. 27-28.