National Union Fire Insurance v. Pratt & Whitney Canada, Inc.
Nevada Supreme Court
1DissentRose, J.
with whom Mowbray, C. J., agrees:
The majority holds that a plaintiff who lost his entire airplane due to the malfunction of a defective compressor blade cannot recover from the manufacturer on a strict liability theory because such damage is an economic loss. I find this conclusion inconsistent with both Nevada case law on economic losses and with the reasoning in cases from other jurisdictions. For this reason, I dissent.
We have already considered why economic loss should not be recoverable in a strict products liability action and have indicated that it is a different type of loss than…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Santor v. a & M KARAGHEUSIAN, INC.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
- Hiigel v. General Motors CorporationSupreme Court of Colorado · 1976
- Mid Continent Aircraft Corp. v. Curry County Spraying Service, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1978
- Morrow v. New Moon Homes, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1976
- Rocky Mountain Fire & Casualty Co. v. Biddulph OldsmobileArizona Supreme Court · 1982
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.