Court Opinion

ID: 9852506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:31:56.704112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:28.837567
License: Public Domain

Justice BEATTY,
concurring in result.
I concur but write separately. This Court heralded a change in its view of the economic loss rule in Kennedy v. Columbia Lumber & Mfg. Co., 299 S.C. 335, 384 S.E.2d 730 (1989). The Court gave no indication that its new analytical framework was limited to residential housing construction. In proclaiming its new framework, the Court set about a review of the Court of Appeals’ economic loss analysis in Carolina Winds Owners’ Ass’n v. Joe Harden Builder, Inc., 297 S.C. 74, 374 S.E.2d 897 (Ct.App.1988). In rejecting the opinion of the Court of Appeals, this Court concluded that the traditional analysis of the economic loss rule was problematical. The Court, referring to the analysis of the Court of Appeals, stated:
Where a purchaser’s expectations in a sale are frustrated because the product he bought is not working properly, his remedy is said to be in contract alone, for he has suffered only “economic” losses. Conversely, where a purchaser buys a product which is defective and physically harms him, his remedy is in either tort or contract. This is so, the analysis provides, because his losses are more than merely “economic.”
We find that this legal framework generates difficulties. This is so because the framework’s focus is on consequence, not action. Builder “A” and Builder “B” can be equally blameworthy, and build equally shoddy housing, but because Builder “A” ‘s negligence happened to be discovered early enough, no one was harmed. It hardly seems fair that Builder “A” should profit from a diligent buyer’s discovery, or because he was fortunate.
*152The framework we adopt focuses on activity, not consequence. If a builder performs construction in such a way that he violates a contractual duty only, then his liability is only contractual. If he acts in a way as to violate a legal duty, however, his liability is both in contract and in tort.
A builder is no less blameworthy in such a case where lady luck has smiled upon him and no physical harm has yet occurred. We discounted the necessity of showing physical harm in Terlinde, 275 S.C. 395, 271 S.E.2d 768 (1980), in which we considered and declined to adopt arguments asserting the “economic loss” rule contained in the Terlinde briefs.
Kennedy, 299 S.C. at 345-46, 384 S.E.2d at 736-37 (emphasis added).
Today, this Court would overrule Colleton Preparatory Acad., Inc. v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 379 S.C. 181, 666 S.E.2d 247 (2008).1 Colleton adheres to the Kennedy analysis framework. If it is wrongly decided, then Kennedy should be overruled as well and this Court should simply say that the economic loss rule is not applicable to residential home building. Of course, this would not explain the negative treatment of the rule in other areas such as professional services. See Tommy L. Griffin Plumbing & Heating v. Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc., 320 S.C. 49, 55, 463 S.E.2d 85, 88-89 (1995) (finding design professionals, including engineers, may have a duty separate and distinct from contractual duties such that the economic loss doctrine would not prohibit a tort action); Beachwalk Villas Condo. Ass’n v. Martin, 305 S.C. 144, 146-47, 406 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1991) (finding a special duty for architects); Lloyd v. Walters, 276 S.C. 223, 226, 277 S.E.2d 888, 889 (1981) (finding an attorney liable for economic loss to a corporate shareholder when attorney breached a duty to the corporation); but see McCullough v. Goodrich & Pennington Mortgage Fund, Inc., 373 S.C. 43, 53, 644 S.E.2d 43, 49 (2007) *153(rejecting the notion of a special duty in the secured transactions arena).
The inconsistent treatment of the doctrine, by use of varying analytical frameworks, does not provide the bench and bar guidance in the proper application of the doctrine. The Court should simply pronounce a list of areas to which public policy prohibits the application of the economic loss doctrine and forego any legal analysis.

. Colleton Preparatory Academy, Inc. limited recovery to the cost of repair suffered by the plaintiff even in a tort action when there is no bodily injury. However, it did not require the plaintiff to wait until injury occurred to bring an action in tort.