Court Opinion

ID: 9743196
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:28:01.098542+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:39.881379
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE REINHARD, specially concurring: In my view, the holdings in Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 69, 435 N.E.2d 443, Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 171, 441 N.E.2d 324, and Foxcroft Townhome Owners Association v. Hoffman Rosner Corp. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 150, 449 N.E.2d 125, would appear to be broadly applicable to all negligence cases, except those based on intentional false representations, and negligent representations in the context of Rozny v. Marnul (1969), 43 Ill. 2d 54, 250 N.E.2d 656, where economic losses are sought and where there is no personal injury or property damage resulting from a sudden or dangerous occurrence. Although the court in Rosos Litho Supply Corp. v. Hansen (1984), 123 Ill. App. 3d 290, 462 N.E.2d 566, in a well-written analysis, reasoned that professional malpractice actions are not within the purview of Moorman, I believe the carving out of any exception to the Moorman rationale should be left to our supreme court. The implications of Moorman and its progeny are not without considerable debate among legal writers (see Bertschy, The Economic Loss Doctrine in Illinois after Moorman, 71 Ill. B.J. 346 (1983), and Stein, Cottrell & Friedlander, A Blueprint for the Duties and Liabilities of Design Professionals After Moorman, 60 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 163 (1984)) and, as I believe the majority opinion in an effort to distinguish Rosos and another important case, Ferentchak v. Village of Frankfort (1984), 121 Ill. App. 3d 599, 459 N.E.2d 1085, appeal allowed (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 546, rather than declining to follow them, adds additional confusion to the subject, I concur only in the result reached by the majority.