Court Opinion

ID: 9729121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:26:48.427912+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.495878
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE MYERSCOUGH, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. I concur that the thunderstorm alleged was a sudden and dangerous occurrence. I dissent in part on the Moorman issue of “other property.” In this case, the warehouse was not alleged to be defective nor was the steel frame. And, GF’s service — erecting and bracing the steel frame for the warehouse — was separate and apart from the steel-frame system and the warehouse itself. Therefore, damage to the steel frame as a result of GF’s negligence in erecting and bracing is damage to “other property,” and the economic-loss doctrine does not bar Kal Kan’s claims. For these reasons, I concur in part and dissent in part and would reverse the trial court.