Court Opinion

ID: 9819014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:17:59.387051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:35:07.281050
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE HEIPLE, dissenting: I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the Moorman doctrine should no longer apply to professional malpractice cases. We should take this opportunity to reevaluate the application of Moorman and remove its protection for professional services, rather than continue to engage in a case-by-case determination of whether a given profession owes some undefinable ex-tracontractual duty to clients. See Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross & Co., 159 Ill. 2d 137, 186-92 (1994) (Heiple, J., dissenting, joined by Harrison, J.). The majority, however, has seen fit to continue a piecemeal approach by applying the Moor-man doctrine to professional malpractice of architects and now engineers but not to attorneys or accountants. In so doing, this court has failed to coherently differentiate between these professional groups, thereby placing trial judges and litigants in the unenviable position of guessing which additional professionals will receive protection under Moorman’s economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. 1 JUSTICES HARRISON and NICKELS join in this dissent.