Economic-loss rule no defense in professional-liability cases

(Continued - Page 2)

The defendants brought various summary judgment motions. They all argued that Washington’s economic-loss rule barred several of the Jackowskis’ claims. The trial court agreed on that issue and dismissed all claims against Hawkins Poe and some of the claims against the other defendants. The Jackowskis appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed in part. The court held that the economic-loss rule applied to, and barred, the Jackowskis’ claims of negligent misrepresentation. That rule generally provides that one may not recover economic losses in tort when the parties’ contract failed to provide for such a recovery. Economic losses include, for example, loss in value of real property, but do not include personal-injury claims or property damage. The court held that the Jackowskis’ damages stemmed from their contract of purchase as opposed to redress for physical harm. Under Alejandre v. Bull, 159 Wn.2d 674 (2007), the rule bars claims of negligent misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of real estate.

But the Jackowski court sided with the Jackowskis on their RCW 18.86 claim, which it held was a claim of professional negligence, concluding that “to do so would be to abrogate professional malpractice claim for all cases not involving physical harm. We do not believe this to be the Alejandre Court’s intention.”

The Jackowski court also held the economic-loss rule does not impair a property buyer’s claim for rescission of the transaction. The court permitted the Jackowskis’ rescission claim against the Borchelts to proceed at trial.