Negligence Lawsuit Seeking Only Economic Damages After the Plaintiff´s Truck Caught Fire*

The plaintiff is this negligence lawsuit is ARK Auto Transport. The defendants are Soss Truck Sales, and Ram Chev.

This is an appeal from a lower court that denied a motion by Ram Chev for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and an appeal which granted another motion by Soss Truck Sales dismissing the complaint against it.

The facts of this case are that the plaintiff ARK Auto bought a truck from Ram Chev. When it was purchased, Ram installed an auxiliary light bar. After the truck caught fire as a result of an electrical fault in the wiring, Soss Truck Sales repaired the light bar.

After another electrical fire caused additional damage to the truck, the plaintiff filed this negligence lawsuit alleging that Ram is liable for the damage to the truck (due to its negligent installation of the light bar and breach of warranty).

The plaintiff further alleges Soss is liable for the later damage caused by the second fire due to its breach of the express and implied warranties of its repair.

As to Ram's appeal, the court notes the plaintiff concedes that Ram made no express warranties and disclaimed all implied warranties. The court finds merit in Ram's argument that the plaintiff's remaining negligence lawsuit and products liability causes of action should have been dismissed as barred by the economic loss rule.

The economic loss rule provides that where only economic loss with respect to a product itself is alleged and the underlying transaction is a sale of goods, the purchaser is limited to its contractual remedies and may not maintain the traditional tort causes of action of negligence or strict product liability.

Since the plaintiff here alleges only economic loss arising out of damage to the product - the truck and its component parts - against the seller of that product, the rule bars the plaintiff's remaining claims and Ram's motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Turning to the plaintiff's appeal for the granting of Soss's motion, the current court agreed with the lower court that Soss's proof that it did no repair work involving the truck's light bar established its prima facie entitlement to judgment (because the plaintiff's complaint had attributed the second truck fire to a fault in the light bar rather than in the truck itself).

The court reviewed the plaintiff's remaining arguments regarding Soss and found them to be meritless.