Court Opinion

ID: 9860496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:23:37.440266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:57.821211
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRAPP, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the disposition reached by the majority opinion but dissent therefrom insofar as the majority accepts the argument of the Batemans that the plaintiffs only suffered economic loss. The majority then proceed to create an hypothesis of liability upon a theory of negligent misrepresentation grounded upon Rozny. This step is unnecessary. The statute concerning plats expressly states that it is “[f]or the protection of persons and property, the flood hazards involved ***.” It seems patent that the damage caused by the flooding of the residence constituted physical, traumatic damage arising from sudden or dangerous occurrences recoverable in tort, rather than an economic loss arising from general deterioration, wear and tear or internal breakdown of the premises resulting in damages recoverable only in a contract action. Moorman Manufacturing Co. v. National Tank Co. (1982), 91 Ill. 2d 69, 86, 435 N.E.2d 443, 450.