APRIL 2026 | 37 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 38. Proe, 574 P.3d 1 at ¶20. 39. Id. 40. Id. at ¶24. 41. Id. at ¶25. 42. Proe, at ¶37. 43. Id. (internal quotations omitted). 44. Id. at ¶38. 45. Id. (citing Town of Alma v. AZCO Constr., Inc., 10 P.3d 1256, 1262 (Colo. 2000)). 46. Proe, 574 P.3d 1 at ¶42. 47. Proe, 574 P.3d 1 at ¶3 (Barnes, C.J., concurring opinion). 48. See e.g., Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 451 Md. 600, 630, 155 A.3d 445, 462-63 (2017) (“We apply the economic loss doctrine and decline to impose tort liability on Engineer for purely economic injuries alleged by Contractor that was neither in privity nor suffered physical injury or risk of physical injury.”); Berschauer/Phillips Const. Co. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 124 Wash. 2d 816, 881 P.2d 986, 990 (1994) (“[T]he economic loss rule does not allow a general contractor to recover purely economic damages in tort from a design professional.”); Rissler & McMurry Co. v. Sheridan Area Water Supply Joint Powers Bd., 929 P.2d 1228, 1235 (Wyo. 1996) (economic loss doctrine barred Restatement (Second) of Torts §552 claim by contractor against engineer); LAN/ STV v. Martin K. Eby Const. Co., 435 S.W.3d 234, 249-50 (Tex. 2014) (economic loss doctrine bars negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims by general contractors against architects for delay damages); BRW, Inc. v. Dufficy & Sons, Inc., 99 P.3d 66, 74, 75 (Colo. 2004) (economic loss doctrine barred subcontractor’s negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims against engineering firm and inspector); IndianapolisMarion Cty. Pub. Library v. Charlier Clark & Linard, P.C., 929 N.E.2d 722, 740 (Ind. 2010) (economic loss doctrine precluded negligence claims by an owner against parties connected to it through “a network or chain of contracts”); Terracon Consultants W., Inc. v. Mandalay Resort Grp., 125 Nev. 66, 206 P.3d 81, 89 (2009) (“In the context of engineers and architects, the bar created by the economic loss doctrine applies to commercial activity for which contract law is better suited to resolve professional negligence claims.”); Fleischer v. Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum, Inc., 870 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993) (“[A]n architect owes no tort duty of care and is not liable to a general contractor or construction manager for damages for economic losses arising as a result of the architect’s negligent performance of its contract with the owner.”); Kalahari Development, LLC v. Iconica, Inc., 811 N.W.2d 825, 832-33 (Wis. Ct. App. 2012); Flagstaff Affordable Hous. Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., 223 Ariz. 320, 329, 223 P.3d 664, 673 (2010) (“the policy concerns that justify applying the [economic loss] doctrine to construction defect cases do not justify distinguishing between contractors on the one hand and design professionals, including architects, on the other.”); Travelers Indem. Co. v. Dammann & Co., 594 F.3d 238, 248 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating, “Contract law is better suited to resolve disputes between parties where a plaintiff alleges direct and consequential losses that were within the contemplation of sophisticated business entities with equal bargaining power and that could have been the subject of their negotiations”); SME Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback & Assocs., Inc., 28 P.3d 669, 683-684 (Utah 2001). 49. 226 Md. App. 420, 130 A.3d 1024 (2016), aff’d, 451 Md. 600, 155 A.3d 445 (2017). 50. 125 Nev. 66, 206 P.3d 81, 89 (2009). 51. Balfour, 226 Md. App. at 429 (“Some contractors believe they can increase profits through change orders that are based on ambiguities, errors, or omissions in the [engineer]’s design. [Engineers] have an interest in protecting their designs, and frequently serve as the owner’s representative during construction.”). 52. Id. 53. Id. at 453. 54. See Balfour, 226 Md. App. at 452 (discussing the potential chilling effect caused by permitting the extension of tort liability to the design engineer). 55. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 451 Md. 600, 611, 155 A.3d 445, 451 (2017). 56. See Proe v. Homes, - P.3d -, ¶26, 2025 OK CIV APP 18. 57. Com. Painting Co. Inc. v. Weitz Co. LLC, 676 S.W.3d 527 (Tenn. 2023). 58. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. Penn Square Mall Ltd. P’ship, 2018 OK CIV APP 56, §13, 425 P.3d 757. Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==