Flowers v. Viking Yacht Company

6 Citing cases

  1. AMEC CIVIL, LLC v. DMJM HARRIS, INC.

    Civil Action No. 06-64 (FLW) (D.N.J. Jun. 30, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Remote, uncertain and contingent consequences do not afford a basis for recovery." Lovett v. Estate of Lovett, 250 N.J. Super. 79, 94 (Ch.Div. 1991); see Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 366 N.J. Super 49, 58 (2003). A quick synopsis of the prevailing New Jersey case law demonstrates why AMEC cannot recover on its Fee Claim in this case.

  2. United States Aviation Underwriters v. Dassault

    505 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Wyo. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    Finding cases concerning "conflicting jurisdiction and comity considerations" inapplicable, but holding that dismissal of declaratory judgment claim was nevertheless warranted because "accident and resulting economic loss ... [had] already occurred" and declaratory judgment claim merely "[sought] to address [plaintiffs'] breach of contract/warranty claims in a declaratory judgment context"

    See e.g., Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 489 A.2d 660 (N.J. 1985), which includes extensive discussion of the economic loss doctrine and reasons therefor and recognizing that economic interests traditionally have not been entitled to protection against mere negligence. See Spring Motors Distributors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 489 A.2d at 671-672; see also Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 840 A.2d 291, 293-294, citing in turnEast River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, 476 U.S. 858, 859, 106 S.Ct. 2295, 90 L.Ed.2d 865, in which the United States Supreme Court stated: . . . to the extent that product actions are based on negligence, they are grounded in principles already incorporated into the general maritime law. . . . . Even when the harm to the product itself occurs through an abrupt, accident-like event, the resulting loss due to repair costs, decreased value, and lost profits is essentially the failure of the purchaser to receive the benefit of its bargain — traditionally the core concern of contract law.

  3. Mapssy Int'l, Inc. v. Hudson Valley Trading Inc.

    Civ. No. 08-3037 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2012)

    For example, "counsel fees may be recoverable as an element of damages when . . . a breach of contract, requires the victim to defend or prosecute a case against a third party." Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 366 N.J. Super. 49, 57-58 (Ch. Div. 2003) (citing Lovett at 94.) But attorney's fees "are only recoverable where the third party litigation is the 'natural and necessary' consequence of the defendant's wrongdoing.

  4. Demorato v. Carver Boat Corporations

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-240 (JAP) (D.N.J. May. 16, 2007)   Cited 5 times

    The Court notes that New Jersey similarly bars action for negligence if the only economic loss suffered is a diminution of the value of the item sold. See Alloway v. General Marine Industries, L.P., 149 N.J. 620 (1997); Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 366 N.J. Super 49 (Law Div. 2003). Here, the damages Plaintiffs have alleged are purely pecuniary in nature and are wholly related to the subject matter of the contract for the sale of the boat.

  5. Ass'n of Apt. Owners v. Venture

    115 Haw. 232 (Haw. 2007)   Cited 161 times
    Holding negligence claims not barred when based on violations of the uniform building code

    Other jurisdictions have similarly defined economic loss as "damages for inadequate value, costs of repair and replacement of [the] defective product, or consequent loss of profits-without any claim of personal injury or damage to other property." Oceanside at Pine Point Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Peachtree Doors, Inc., 659 A.2d 267, 270 n. 4 (Me. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) [hereinafter, Oceanside]; see also Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Nat'l Tank Co., 91 Ill.2d 69, 61 Ill.Dec. 746, 435 N.E.2d 443, 449 (1982) (same); Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 366 N.J.Super. 49, 840 A.2d 291, 296 (2003) (same). In Calloway, the Nevada Supreme Court recognized that:

  6. In re Estate of Stockdale

    DOCKET NO. A-4037-10T4 (App. Div. Jan. 29, 2013)

    Remote, uncertain and contingent consequences do not afford a basis for recovery." Flowers v. Viking Yacht Co., 366 N.J. Super. 49, 58 (Law Div. 2003) (citation omitted). Importantly, the harm must be foreseeable at the time of the defendant's wrongdoing.