This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

Litigation

Sep. 16, 2000

Economic Squeeze

By Mark S. Roth. Since its inception 35 years ago in the seminal case of Seely v. White Motor Co. 63 Cal.2d 9 (1965), the "economic loss doctrine" remains one of the murkiest concepts in the legal swamp. The 4th District Court of Appeal recently attempted to elucidate this issue in Stearman v. Centex Homes, 78 Cal.App.4th 611 (2000).

By Mark S. Roth
        Since its inception 35 years ago in the seminal case of Seely v. White Motor Co. 63 Cal.2d 9 (1965), the "economic loss doctrine" remains one of the murkiest concepts in the legal swamp. The 4th District Court of Appeal recently attempted to elucidate this issue in Stearman v. Centex Homes, 78 Cal.App.4th 611 (2000).
        ...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Sign up for Daily Journal emails