Does Ohios Economic Loss Rule Preclude CAPs Breach-of-Implied-Warranty Claims for Economic Damages?
CAP argues that by marking the location of the underground gas lines, Columbia and Reliant have breached an implied warranty of workmanlike quality. Breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality sounds in tort. Barton v. Ellis (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 251, 518 N.E.2d 18. Therefore, the question becomes whether the economic loss rule precludes CAP’s claims for breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality. In support of its argument that the economic loss rule does not preclude CAP’s recovery for breach of an implied warranty, CAP cites LaPuma v. Collinwood (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 64, 1996 Ohio 305, 661 N.E.2d 714. [*19] In LaPuma, the Supreme Court considered whether Ohio’s product liability statute preempted plaintiff’s claim against a concrete supplier for breach of implied warranty of workmanlike quality. In determining that the claim was not a product liability claim and therefore the product liability statutes did not preempt their cause of action, the Supreme Court considered
