Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.
California Supreme Court
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., D. Barclay Edmundson; Howrey Simon Arnold & White, David G. Meyer, Michael L. Resch; Bowman and Brooke, Lawrence R. Ramsey; Cardelli, Hebert & Lanfear and Thomas G. Cardelli for Defendant and Appellant.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BROWN, J.
In this case, we decide whether the economic loss rule, which in some circumstances bars a tort action in the absence of personal injury or physical damage to other property, applies to claims for intentional misrepresentation or fraud in the performance of a contract. Because plaintiff Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc.’s (Robinson) fraud and intentional misrepresentation claim, with respect to Dana Corporation’s (Dana) provision of false certificates of conformance, is an independent action based in tort, we conclude that the economic loss rule does not bar tort recovery.
*985Facts
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Seely v. White Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Lazar v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1996
- Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1994
- Redarowicz v. OhlendorfIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
- Erlich v. MenezesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by401 opinions
- City of Pomona v. Sqm North America CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Falk v. General Motors Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2007
- County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Court of Appeal · 2006
- Collins v. eMachines, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- In Re Toyota Motor Corp. Unintended Acceleration Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Liability LitigationDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2010
396 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.