Sullivan v. Pulte Homes (7/31/13)

We blogged the Court of Appeals opinion here. The Supreme Court took review only of the economic-loss issue. In a brief opinion the court agrees with the Court of Appeals but vacates that part of its opinion, perhaps to remove the weaker aspects of its analysis of Flagstaff.  The take-away: “We decline to extend the [economic-loss] doctrine to non-contracting parties.” The Sullivans can pursue a tort claim – though the opinion cites a Restatement note suggesting that they don’t have one.

This is one of the new slip opinions formatted to look like those from the SCOTUS. We’re going to assume that somebody got new software and that that’s the easiest way to use it. The other explanations involve unfortunate perceptions of the relationships between the courts and, also, vanity. But at least its good to see that our Supreme Court can afford printers than can handle decent fonts.

(link to opinion)