Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc.

6 Citing cases

  1. Mishkin v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am.

    1:22-cv-06127-NLH-EAP (D.N.J. Jun. 27, 2023)

    Federal courts in Missouri have declined to apply B.L. Jet Sales, Inc., however, due in part to the appellate court's perceived failure to support its decision. See Nestle Purina Petcare Co. v. Blue Buffalo Co. Ltd., 181 F.Supp.3d 618, 640 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 19, 2016) (citing Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc., No. 1:10-CV-205, 2012 WL 718624, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2012), aff'd, 735 F.3d 750 (8th Cir. 2013) and Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams, No. 4:12 CV 01640, 2012 WL 6013217, at *2-3 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2012), aff'd, 732 F.3d at 902).

  2. K.A. ex rel. B.W. v. Children's Mercy Hosp.

    Case No. 4:18-00514-CV-RK (W.D. Mo. May. 16, 2019)

    The Court notes that were the economic loss doctrine to apply, Defendant does not address the exception to the economic loss doctrine relied on by Plaintiff. See Web Innovations & Tech. Servs. v. Bridges to Dig. Excellence, Inc., 69 F. Supp. 3d 928, 932 (E.D. Mo. 2014) (citing Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc., No. 1:10CV205 SNLJ, 2012 WL 718624, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2012)) (exception to the economic loss doctrine where tort claims either involve a fiduciary relationship or rendering of professional services). Moreover, regarding Plaintiff's tort claims, Plaintiff has also pleaded that she has suffered other damages including embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life.

  3. Prime Aid Pharmacy Corp. v. Express Scripts, Inc.

    Case No. 4:16-CV-1237 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo. May. 12, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Courts have recognized specific exceptions to the economic loss doctrine in cases involving a fiduciary relationship or negligence in providing professional services or where the defendant breached a public duty. Id. at 932-33 (citing Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc., No. 1:10CV205 SNLJ, 2012 WL 718624, at *3 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 6, 2012); Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. 4:12CV01640 CDP, 2012 WL 6013217, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 3, 2012)). These exceptions do not apply here.

  4. Web Innovations & Tech. Servs., Inc. v. Bridges to Digital Excellence, Inc.

    69 F. Supp. 3d 928 (E.D. Mo. 2014)   Cited 10 times

    Some Missouri courts have recognized specific exceptions to the economic loss doctrine in cases involving a fiduciary relationship or negligence in providing professional services. See, e.g., Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc., No. 1:10CV205 SNLJ, 2012 WL 718624, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 6, 2012). Another recognized exception applies where the defendant breached a public duty. Id.; see also Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin–Williams Co., No. 4:12CV01640 CDP, 2012 WL 6013217, at *2 (E.D.Mo. Dec. 3, 2012) (listing authority).

  5. Superior Edge, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.

    44 F. Supp. 3d 890 (D. Minn. 2014)   Cited 41 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a counterclaim which incorporated by reference the prior paragraphs within seven separate counts was nonetheless “more than sufficient to put [plaintiff] on notice” where each count “explicitly state[d] the basis for relief under each legal theory”

    The Court notes that Missouri law regarding the economic loss doctrine is somewhat unclear, and courts have therefore looked broadly to other jurisdictions to anticipate the scope and substance of Missouri's economic loss doctrine jurisprudence. See Dannix Painting, LLC, 732 F.3d at 905–06 (anticipating “how the Missouri Supreme Court would rule” on an issue involving the economic loss doctrine and citing Illinois, Minnesota, and North Dakota law); Bruce Martin Constr., Inc. v. CTB, Inc., Civ. No. 10–205, 2012 WL 718624, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 6, 2012) (“State and federal case law relating to the economic loss doctrine in Missouri is fairly complex and somewhat contradictory.”).

  6. Trademark Medical, LLC v. Birchwood Laboratories, Inc.

    22 F. Supp. 3d 998 (E.D. Mo. 2014)   Cited 39 times
    Rejecting plaintiff's argument that new discovery justified late amendment of pleadings

    Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. v. CTB, Inc., 2012 WL 718624, at *3 (E.D.Mo. Mar. 6, 2012). Another recognized exception applies where the defendant breached a public duty.