Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp.
34 Cal. 4th 979, 22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352, 102 P.3d 268 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The economic loss rule does not bar tort claims for intentional misrepresentation or fraud in the performance of a contract when the fraudulent conduct is independent of the contract breach and exposes the plaintiff to liability for personal damages or risks public safety, even if the damages suffered are purely economic.
Facts:
- Robinson Helicopter Company, a helicopter manufacturer, purchased sprag clutches (safety mechanisms) for its R22 and R44 models from Dana Corporation, its sole supplier.
- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations required these clutches to be ground to a specific "50/55 Rockwell" hardness level, which Dana consistently met from 1984 until July 1996.
- In July 1996, Dana secretly changed its manufacturing process to a higher "61/63 Rockwell" hardness without notifying Robinson or the FAA.
- Dana subsequently continued to provide Robinson with written certificates falsely confirming that the clutches met the required 50/55 hardness specifications.
- In October 1997, Dana secretly reverted to the original 50/55 hardness level, but clutches produced during the 61/63 period (July 1996-Oct 1997) later experienced a high failure rate of 9.86 percent.
- After Robinson reported numerous clutch failures in 1998, Dana finally disclosed on November 30, 1998, that it had used the higher hardness level during the July 1996-October 1997 period.
- Although no personal injuries or damage to other property resulted, regulatory bodies compelled Robinson to recall and replace all 990 faulty clutch assemblies, incurring over $1.5 million in costs.
Procedural Posture:
- Robinson Helicopter Company filed an action against Dana Corporation, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent and intentional misrepresentations.
- A jury in the trial court returned a verdict for Robinson, awarding $1,533,924 in compensatory damages and $6 million in punitive damages, finding Dana liable for breach of contract, warranty, and intentional misrepresentations, including knowing misrepresentation/concealment with intent to defraud.
- Dana appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment on the contract and warranty causes of actions but reversed the judgment in part based on the misrepresentation claims and the punitive damages award, applying the economic loss rule because Robinson suffered only economic losses.
- Robinson sought review from the California Supreme Court regarding the Court of Appeal’s application of the economic loss rule to its fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the economic loss rule bar a tort action for intentional misrepresentation or fraud, specifically for providing false certificates of conformance during contract performance, when the misrepresentation is independent of the contract breach and exposed the plaintiff to a risk of liability for personal damages, even if only economic losses were incurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
Yes, the economic loss rule does not bar Robinson's fraud and intentional misrepresentation claims because Dana's provision of false certificates of conformance constituted an independent tort separate from the breach of contract. The court reasoned that while the economic loss rule typically limits recovery for purely economic losses to contract law, it does not apply when the conduct also violates an independent duty arising from tort law. Intentional misrepresentation, specifically the issuance of false certificates, is an independent tort (fraud) because it involves a separate duty not to deceive, beyond the contractual duty to provide conforming goods. Dana's affirmative misrepresentations by supplying false certificates of conformance induced Robinson's detrimental reliance and exposed Robinson to liability for personal damages and FAA disciplinary action, thus implicating public safety concerns beyond a mere contractual dispute. Allowing recovery for such fraud aligns with public policy to punish intentional misrepresentations, deter future fraudulent practices, and maintain a business climate free of deceit, which rational parties cannot anticipate and allocate risks for in a contract.
Dissenting - Werdegard, J.
No, the economic loss rule should bar Robinson's tort claims for intentional misrepresentation because applying tort liability for a bad-faith breach of a commercial contract, even if accompanied by false representations about performance, undermines commercial predictability and blurs the essential distinction between contract and tort law. The dissent argued that Dana's conduct, while deplorable, amounted to a breach of contract accompanied by false contractual representations of compliance, which should be remedied solely through contract damages. Allowing tort claims for "bad breaches" where only economic losses are suffered would create satellite litigation in every breach case, forcing courts to inquire into the breaching party's motives. The economic loss rule is designed to allocate the risk of a product not performing to expectations to contract law unless actual property damage or personal injury occurs, not merely the risk of liability for such. The dissent also highlighted a procedural issue with the jury's special verdict, which combined misrepresentation and concealment, noting that if concealment were not tortious under the economic loss rule, the verdict could not stand.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the application of the economic loss rule in California, clarifying that it does not shield defendants who engage in affirmative, intentional misrepresentations during contract performance, especially when such fraud implicates public safety or exposes the plaintiff to liability for personal damages. The ruling creates a crucial carve-out, allowing tort recovery and punitive damages even for purely economic losses if the fraudulent conduct is distinct from the breach itself. This decision aims to deter deliberate deceit in commercial transactions and protect the public interest, potentially leading to more fraud claims alongside contract claims, particularly in industries where non-conforming goods could lead to personal injury.
