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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.