Opinion ID: 1913882
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: contract or tort?

Text: Arguing that [t]his is not an issue of contract but, rather, one of conduct, Seifert seeks to make this action into a tort claim, not a contract claim. He alleges both negligence and bad faith conduct by FUMutual. FUMutual counters that, in a contract action, tortious conduct must exist independently of a breach of contract. We agree. On the distinction between tort and contract, one scholar says: Tort obligations are in general obligations that are imposed by law on policy considerations to avoid some kind of loss to others. They are obligations imposed apart from and independent of promises made and therefore apart from any manifested intention of parties to a contract or other bargaining transaction. Therefore, if the alleged obligation to do or not to do something that was breached could not have existed but for a manifested intent, then contract law should be the only theory upon which liability would be imposed. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts § 92, at 656 (5th ed. 1984) (emphasis original). The question in this case is whether FUMutual's obligations to Seifert could not have existed but for a manifested intent that requires resolution solely by contract law.