About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations (Fall 2025) Restatement, Third, Torts: Liability for Economic Harm [i] (Fall 2025)

handle is hein.ali/alitorts0025 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Fall 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: LIABILITY FOR ECONOMIC HARM CHAPTER 1. UNINTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ECONOMIC LOSS § 3. Preclusion of Tort Liability Arising from Contract (Economic-Loss Rule) C.A.9, 2024. Com. (b) quot. in sup. and quot. in case quot. in sup. Customer sued cellular telephone- service provider for negligence, alleging that it failed to adequately protect his account information, after hackers gained control over his phone number through a fraudulent SIM swap, received password- reset messages for his online accounts, and stole $24 million in cryptocurrency from his digital wallets. The district court granted summary judgment for provider. This court affirmed in part, holding that the economic-loss rule barred customer's negligence claim, because he failed to identify a duty independent of the parties' wireless customer agreement. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 3 in noting that the economic-loss rule served many purposes, including allowing the parties to allocate risk before entering contracts, reducing confusion stemming from lawsuits due to redundant contract and tort theories, and preventing the erosion of contract doctrines by the use of tort law to work around them. Terpin v. AT And T Mobility LLC, 118 F.4th 1102, 1114, 1116. C.D.Cal.2024. Com. (f) (quot. in case quot. in sup. Vehicle purchaser filed a putative class action against vehicle manufacturer, alleging that manufacturer knew about a defect in the electric defroster of the vehicle's rear hatch window which could cause the rear hatch window to spontaneously break or shatter with no external impact and that manufacturer violated state consumer protection law. This court granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that, while plaintiff failed to allege a claim under Texas consumer protection laws, her claim would not be barred by the economic loss doctrine, because she alleged that defendant procured her purchase of the vehicle by fraud. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Liability for Economic Harm § 3, Commentf in observing that the economic loss rule reflected the courts' preference that economic losses be allocated by contract where feasible. McIntyre v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 739 F.Supp.3d 776, 800-801. § 4. Professional Negligence Resulting in Economic Loss COPYRIGHT C2025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.