Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party

26-50 of 888 results

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATHRYN AVALOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATHRYN AVALOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATHRYN AVALOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATHRYN AVALOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KATHRYN AVALOS VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Jan 17, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DOUGLAS HATT VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KIM VS. QUALITECH ENGINEERING, INC.

For example, the economic loss rule is designed to prevent the merger of contract and tort remedies. The California Supreme Court has noted that the economic loss rule is necessary to “prevent[ ] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving into one another.” Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 (internal modification and quotations omitted).

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

JUAN HERRERA VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JUAN HERRERA VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Robinson expressly recognized the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss rule and did not modify it. Rather, it created a new and limited exception to the economic loss rule based affirmative misrepresentations on which the plaintiff relies and which expose the plaintiff to liability for personal damages.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ALDO ABRONZINO V. JAAP LANGENBERG, ET AL.

Such a claim is subject to demurrer and barred by the economic loss rule. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that his conversion claim is based on independent tortious conduct, not the Operating Agreement. (See NuCal, supra, 918 F.Supp.2d at p. 1028; Robinson, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 991 [the economic loss rule bars a plaintiff’s claim for tortious breach of contract unless the tortious conduct is independent of the breach of contract].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2018

HOLMQUIST VS. FCA US LLC

The economic loss rule requires a purchaser to recover in contract for purely economic loss due to disappointed expectations, unless he can demonstrate harm above and beyond a broken contractual promise. (Redarowicz v. Ohlendorf (1982) 92 Ill.2d 171, 65 Ill.Dec. 411, 441 N.E.2d 324, 327.) Quite simply, the economic loss rule "prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other." (Rich Products Corp. v. Kemutec, Inc. (E.D.Wis.1999) 66 F.Supp.2d 937, 969.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

HERNANDEZ V. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.

Defendant contends that the economic loss rule prevents Plaintiff’s (Juan Hernandez) recovery in tort. (Demurrer; 15:17-17:2.) Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. v. Dana Corporation (Robinson) (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, 988, states, “We begin with a brief background on the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.