Court Opinion

ID: 9520545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:43:18.22637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:25.454329
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J.
¶ 50. {concurring). I join the majority opinion except Part VI relating to the economic loss doctrine.
¶ 51. I agree with the majority opinion that the economic loss doctrine "cannot apply to bar statutory claims, including those under HIPA."1 I do not join the majority opinion in addressing the question whether the economic loss doctrine bars the Stuarts' claims for negligent design or negligent construction. This discussion is not necessary to the holding in the present case.
¶ 52. I agree with the majority opinion in not responding to the concurrence/dissent that addresses and decides the instant case on whether the plaintiffs proved that the defendants made an actionable misrepresentation for purposes of the Home Improvement Practices Act (HIPA).2 This issue was not raised or briefed.3 The majority opinion properly leaves the issue untouched.
¶ 53. For the reasons set forth, I join the majority opinion except Part VI. I write separately on the issues of the economic loss doctrine and actionable misrepresentation.

 Majority op., ¶ 13.

 See concurrence/dissent, ¶¶ 66-81.

 The majority opinion correctly states the issues before the court at ¶ 3.