About

This blog focuses on real estate, land use and construction-related topics affecting Virginia and the Washington, D.C. metro area. With topics ranging from contract drafting and negotiation to local and regional land use project updates, the attorneys at Bean, Kinney & Korman provide timely insight and commentary on the issues affecting owners, builders, developers, contractors, subcontractors and other players in the industry. If you are interested in having us cover a specific topic, please let us know.

Contact us

Topics

Archives

Select Month:

Contributors

Virginia Clarifies Economic Loss Rule, and Why This Case May Matter

Pest ControlA decision issued this month by the Supreme Court of Virginia, Kaltman v All American Pest, answers a question often debated by Virginia lawyers regarding the economic loss rule.  The case also may contain a hidden Trojan horse to contract defenses that everyone should pay attention to.

As we have discussed here on several occasions, the economic loss rule is a critical concept in Virginia construction law.  Stated simply, a party cannot sue under Virginia law for economic losses without establishing they have a contract.  Another case and its progeny, Richmond v. McDevitt Street, ruled that a plaintiff cannot sue in tort for a duty assumed solely by contract.

In Kaltman, a worker failed to properly clean his equipment after a commercial job.  The next day, he used the same equipment on a residential home, including on porous surfaces.  The result was a high-powered commercial pesticide was used on home despite it being inappropriate for residential use.  Despite multiple rounds of cleaning, the owners could not remove the pesticide smell from the home.  The owners claimed personal injuries and property damage from their home being rendered uninhabitable by the smell.

The defendants request that the trial court dismiss the case based on the economic loss rule barring tort claims.  The court agreed.  On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and found that the owners could allege an independent tort duty to protect against personal injury and property damage.  While the court threw out the willful and wanton conduct allegations, it allowed both negligence and negligence per se to survive.

Why does it matter if you can sue in both contract and tort?  I can think of several strategic and practical reasons:

  1. The tort claims may more easily trigger insurance coverage;
  2. The tort claims may escape the net of contractual notice of claims provisions; and
  3. The tort claims may escape the restrictions of limitations of liability clauses.
  4. The tort claims may allow broader damages more easily than contract claims.

Image by US Air Force

  • Shareholder

    Timothy Hughes is the managing shareholder of Bean, Kinney & Korman. He also represents clients in construction and commercial litigation, as well as corporate, contracts and general business matters. With over 20 years ...