From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gerald M. Moore and Son, Inc. v. Drewry

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 22, 1996
81 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 1996)

Opinion

No. 94-2024

Argued: April 3, 1995

Decided: April 22, 1996

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Tommy E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (CA-93-1118-N)

ARGUED: Brian Nelson Casey, TAYLOR WALKER, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. John Stephen Wilson, WILLCOX SAVAGE, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Walter D. Kelly, Jr., WILLCOX SAVAGE, P.C., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before MURNAGHAN, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Reversed by published opinion. Judge Murnaghan wrote the opinion, in which Judge Williams and Judge Motz joined.


Joseph S. Drewry, Jr. (Drewry) was president of Drewry and Associates, Inc. (D A), which entered a contract with Gerald M. Moore Son, Inc. One question presented was whether Drewry, as president of D A and the engineer who performed the work called for, was liable for the purely economic losses resulting from the negligent performance of the contract.

The question was certified to the Supreme Court of Virginia which held that "in the absence of privity, a person cannot be held liable for economic loss damages caused by his negligent performance of a contract." Hence "the certified question was answered in the negative."

Accordingly, the opinion holding Drewry individually liable under the economic loss doctrine is REVERSED.


Summaries of

Gerald M. Moore and Son, Inc. v. Drewry

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Apr 22, 1996
81 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 1996)
Case details for

Gerald M. Moore and Son, Inc. v. Drewry

Case Details

Full title:GERALD M. MOORE AND SON, INCORPORATED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JOSEPH S…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Apr 22, 1996

Citations

81 F.3d 514 (4th Cir. 1996)

Citing Cases

Moore Son, Inc. v. Drewry Associates, Inc.

After the Supreme Court of Virginia answered the certified question in the negative, the Fourth Circuit…