Court Opinion

ID: 9812834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:49:17.763913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:45.315274
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
specially concurring.
[¶ 45] I write separately out of concern about the lack of consideration of the economic loss rule in this and other disputes where breaches of contract are being litigated as tort claims. However, due to the law of the case, I agree with the Court’s disposition of this matter. See Bakke v. D & A Landscaping Company, LLC, 2012 ND 170, ¶ 17, 820 N.W.2d 357 (unobjected to legal irregularities become law of the case).
[¶ 46] A recent legal commentator noted:
“Most litigants, if given the chance, prefer to assert tort theories to recover their economic losses, rather than rely on the remedies provided under contract law. This is primarily because plaintiffs have the potential to recover more damages under tort law than contract law. However, most courts have adopted a doctrine known as the economic loss rule to bar plaintiffs from asserting certain tort theories to recover for their eco.nomic loss. Although the economic loss rule may seem like an easy way to maintain the boundary between tort law and contract law, confusion abounds when courts attempt to determine the proper contexts in which to apply the doctrine.”
Note, Not Just for Products Liability: Applying the Economic Loss Rule Beyond its Origins, 83 Fordham L. Rev. 1073 (November, 2014).
[¶ 47] This Court reviewed the underpinnings of the economic loss rule in Clarys v. Ford Motor Company, 1999 ND 72, 592 N.W.2d 573. The rule (sometimes referred to as the economic loss doctrine) again was reviewed in Leno v. K & L Homes, Inc., 2011 ND 171, ¶17, 803 N.W.2d 543. There, we held that, “under the economic loss doctrine in North Dakota, ‘economic loss resulting from damage to a defective product, as distinguished from damage to other property or persons, may be recovered in a cause of action for breach of warranty or contract, but not in a tort action.’ ” (citations omitted).
[¶ 48] A concept closely related to, if not a part of, the economic loss rule discussion is that contract claims ordinarily cannot be asserted as negligence actions. This Court has held:
“In Dakota Grain Co. v. Ehrmantrout, 502 N.W.2d 234, 236-37 (N.D.1993), we explained the difference between a breach of warranty action arising under a sales contract and a negligence action. The seller’s negligence, or lack of negligence, is not relevant to the question of whether the seller breached his or her *772express warranty to deliver conforming goods. Id. at 236. A mere breach of contract does not, by itself, furnish a basis for tort liability grounded in negligence. Id. Conduct which constitutes a breach of contract does not subject the actor to an action for negligence, unless the conduct also constitutes a breach of an independent duty that did not arise from the contract. Id. at 236-37; see also Olander Contracting Co. v. Gail Wachter Investments, 2002 ND 65, ¶ 26, 643 N.W.2d 29.”
Superior, Inc. v. Behlen Mfg. Co., 2007 ND 141, ¶ 30, 738 N.W.2d 19.
[¶ 49] Here, most if not all duties alleged by Irish Oil to have been breached by Border arose out of their contract. Legitimate questions may have existed whether those claimed breaches of fiduciary duty satisfied the “independent duty” requirement spoken of in the Superior and Dakota Grain cases. But that was not decided in the district court and it would be inappropriate for us to sua sponte make that inquiry on appeal. I therefore write separately to note that unexplored legal issues remain under the economic loss doctrine, and my signing of the majority opinion should not suggest I agree otherwise.
[¶ 50] DANIEL J. CROTHERS