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

76-100 of 888 results

STATE FARM VS. FORD MOTOR

Consolidated argued that the furnace was one integrated product, and that recovery for damage caused by one component part of the furnace to other component parts of the furnace was barred by the economic loss rule. The trial court in KB Home ruled, as a matter of law, that recovery was barred under the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2017

  • Judge Spanos
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

GARCIA VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY

The court finds, as pled, Plaintiff's fraud claims Fraudulent Inducement – Concealment, Fraudulent Inducement – Intentional Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Inducement – Negligent Misrepresentation) are barred by the economic loss rule. Both sides cite to Robinson Helicopter to support their arguments. Robinson Helicopter explains, [w]e begin with a brief background on the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

THE ENPEX CORPORATION VS. SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC

The economic loss rule is not applicable, and/or the duty giving rise to this tort is independent from any contract between the parties.

  • Hearing

    May 08, 2018

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROQUE MARQUEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY ET AL

Re: Economic Loss Rule. Defendant’s argument that the economic loss rule bars this fraud-based cause of action is not persuasive.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2017

TEDESCHI VS FCA US LLC

The economic loss rule bars Plaintiffs’ fraudulent inducement claim, which is based on alleged concealment. The Robinson exception to the economic loss rule is inapplicable because, even after given leave to amend, Plaintiffs still do not allege affirmative misrepresentations nor allege any personal damages apart from economic loss.

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2019

SANDOVAL, ET AL. V. GENERAL MOTORS LLC

The seventh cause of action is not barred by the economic loss rule. GM argues that the seventh cause of action is barred by the economic loss rule. The parties agree that in Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp. (2004) 34 Cal.4th 979, the California Supreme Court specifically stated that the economic loss rule does not apply to an intentional misrepresentation cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

JAE ELLESCAS 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

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TODD KIRK 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

    Feb 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TODD KIRK 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

    Feb 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TODD KIRK 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

    Feb 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAE ELLESCAS 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

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

TODD KIRK 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

    Feb 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAE ELLESCAS 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

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

INGRID EAGLY VS GENERAL MOTORS 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. [Citation.] Quite simply, the economic loss rule “prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.” [Citation.] In Jimenez v.

  • Hearing

    Apr 27, 2018

KINDRA QUINTON 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

    Apr 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAE ELLESCAS 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

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KINDRA QUINTON 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

    Apr 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KINDRA QUINTON 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

    Apr 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KINDRA QUINTON 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

    Apr 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANE COYLE CUSTOM VS GENOVA PRODUCTS INC

"To apply the economic loss rule, we must first determine what the product at issue is. Only then do we find out whether the injury is to the product itself (for which recovery is barred by the economic loss rule) or to property other than the defective product (for which plaintiffs may recover in tort)." Id. at 483. The product at issue is the Genova decking, and Plaintiff is claiming for the cost of replacing the Genova decking.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2013

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

IGNACIO CESARIIO VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC

Thus, Defendant argues that the exception is inapplicable here and the economic loss rule applies. (Id. at p. 12:20-21.) In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that material omissions may preclude the application of the economic loss rule because “at least one federal court construing Robinson has concluded that there is no meaningful distinction between intentional concealment and intentional misrepresentation for purposes of applying the economic loss rule.”

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2019

TODD KIRK 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

    Feb 22, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

KINDRA QUINTON 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

    Apr 05, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

JAE ELLESCAS 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

    Feb 16, 2017

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

STATE FARM VS. FORD MOTOR

Consolidated argued that the furnace was one integrated product, and that recovery for damage caused by one component part of the furnace to other component parts of the furnace was barred by the economic loss rule. The trial court in KB Home ruled, as a matter of law, that recovery was barred under the economic loss rule.

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2017

  « 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.