Court Opinion

ID: 9715568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:08:57.531975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:35.916972
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE MILLER, specially concurring: I concur in the court’s judgment. Unlike the majority, however, I believe that today’s result is dictated not only by custom but by logic as well. The development of the Moorman doctrine and the nature of the attorney-client relationship make clear that the doctrine can have no application here. In Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 69, this court adopted the principle, articulated in Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965), 63 Cal. 2d 9, 403 P.2d 145, 45 Cal. Rptr. 17, that actions against product manufacturers for what are in essence “economic losses” are more properly brought in contract than in tort. Moorman described the term “economic loss” in the following manner: “ ‘Economic loss’ has been defined as ‘damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of the defective product, or consequent loss of profits — without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property ***’ [citation] as well as ‘the diminution in the value of the product because it is inferior in quality and does not work for the general purposes for which it was manufactured and sold.’ [Citation.] These definitions are consistent with the policy of warranty law to protect expectations of suitability and quality.” (Moorman, 91 Ill. 2d at 82.) In Moorman, the court determined that damages for solely economic losses may not be recovered under the tort theories of strict liability, negligence, or innocent misrepresentation in an action relating to product performance or quality against a product manufacturer. Application of the Moorman doctrine has not been confined to strict liability actions against product manufacturers. In subsequent decisions, this court has extended the rationale of the economic loss doctrine to other types of cases. These include actions relating to construction defects brought against architects (2314 Lincoln Park West Condominium Association v. Mann, Gin, Ebel & Frazier, Ltd. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 302) and builders and developers (Morrow v. L.A. Goldschmidt Associates, Inc. (1986), 112 Ill. 2d 87; Foxcroft Townhome Owners Association v. Hoffman Rosner Corp. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 150; Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 171), as well as actions relating to the rendition of certain industrial services (Anderson Electric, Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp. (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 146). In each instance, however, this court has noted the commercial or contractual nature of the parties’ relationship and the appropriateness of limiting the plaintiff to a contract-based remedy. See 2314 Lincoln Park West Condominium Association, 136 Ill. 2d at 317 (“The architect’s responsibility originated in its contract with the original owner, and in these circumstances its duties should be measured accordingly”); Anderson Electric, 115 Ill. 2d at 153 (“A plaintiff seeking to recover purely economic losses due to defeated expectations of a commercial bargain cannot recover in tort”); Morrow, 112 Ill. 2d at 98 (“the plaintiffs essentially are complaining that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain — a harm which is appropriately remedied by bringing an action for breach of contract”); Foxcroft Townhome Owners Association, 96 Ill. 2d at 156 (“There is no allegation that the installation of defective siding resulted in physical injury, or damage to other property. Nor was the damage to the defective product itself due to a ‘sudden and dangerous occurrence best served by the policy of tort law’ ”); Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 178 (“While the commercial expectations of this buyer have not been met by the builder, the only danger to the plaintiff is that he would be forced to incur additional expenses for living conditions that were less than what was bargained for”). Thus, throughout the development of the Moorman doctrine, this court has eschewed a formalistic reliance on the character of the damages sought and has focused instead on the policies served by the rule. In essence, the economic loss, or commercial loss, doctrine denies a remedy in tort to a party whose complaint is rooted in disappointed contractual or commercial expectations. (See Seely v. White Motor Co. (1965), 63 Cal. 2d 9, 18, 403 P.2d 145, 151, 45 Cal. Rptr. 17, 23; see also Miller v. United States Steel Corp. (7th Cir. 1990), 902 F.2d 573, 574 (suggesting that the term “commercial loss” rather than “economic loss” more accurately reflects the conceptual foundations of the principle).) The doctrine reflects the principle that there are varying degrees of quality, all commercially acceptable, that parties to a commercial transaction are free to bargain over if they choose. For example, an architect’s selection of the construction materials to be used in a particular structure will depend in large part on the amount of money the owner is willing to spend on the project. Disputes later arising from the character of the materials used should be determined under principles of contract law, and should be controlled by the requirements imposed by the parties’ own undertaking. In that instance, the contract itself serves best to define the parties’ respective rights and obligations. There is no small measure of difficulty in transplanting the Moorman doctrine to the field of attorney malpractice. Tort law has traditionally provided the primary means for resolving claims of attorney malpractice. (C. Wolfram, Modern Legal Ethics §5.6.2, at 209 (1986) (“[T]he tort theory is by far the most important theory of recovery”); 1 R. Mallen & J. Smith, Legal Malpractice §8.10, at 425 (3d ed. 1989) (“The most common form of a legal malpractice action is for negligence”); Manning, Legal Malpractice: Is It Tort or Contract?, 21 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 741, 751 (1990) (in Illinois, tort law affords traditional remedy for legal malpractice, though breach of contract has also been used).) Tort law provides a flexible standard by which to assess attorney performance. The requirement of competence is a duty traditionally imposed in the attorney-client relationship, and it is codified in our Rules of Professional Conduct (134 Ill. 2d R. 1.1). This requirement is founded on, and reflects, tort law principles (see 1 G. Hazard & W. Hodes, The Law of Lawyering §1.1:201 (2d ed. 1990)) and exists without regard to the terms of any contract of employment entered into by a lawyer and a client. For these reasons, it is singularly inappropriate to attempt to apply the economic loss, or better, commercial loss, doctrine to attorney malpractice actions. The cases in which Moorman has been applied are grounded on the notion that the complaining party, if he wished protection against the particular type of harm suffered, could have bargained for a guarantee or warranty against it. It is difficult to apply that concept in the area of legal representation, where the purpose of retaining counsel is to obtain a representative who will function as a fiduciary and will act professionally, with reasonable skill and ability, to advance the client’s interests. It would be rare indeed for an attorney to guarantee or to promise to achieve a particular result in a matter. 1 R. Mallen & J. Smith, Legal Malpractice §8.4, at 415 (3d ed. 1989). In light of the purposes the Moorman rule was designed to serve, there is simply no reason — in logic or in custom — to extend that doctrine to the field of lawyer malpractice. The attorney-client relationship is not the sort of commercial context in which limits on the recovery of economic losses are either necessary or properly applied. For the reasons stated, I concur in the court’s judgment. JUSTICES BILANDIC, FREEMAN and CUNNINGHAM join in this concurrence.