Cited by

JUSTICE LOPEZ, opinion of the Court: ¶1 Today we revisit our holding in Donnelly Construction Company v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, which held that a design professional’s duty to use ordinary skill, care, and diligence in rendering professional services extends both to persons in privity with the professional and to persons foreseeably affected by a breach of that duty.

ursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 299A, which provides that generally, “one who undertakes to render services in the practice of a profession or trade is required to exercise the skill and knowledge normally possessed by members of that profession or trade in good standing in similar communities.” In support of its argument, Cal-Am cites Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

Ltd. v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 36 (2010) ("design professionals have a duty to use ordinary skill, care, and diligence in rendering their professional services") (quoting Donnelly Const. Co. v. Obert/Hunt/Gilleland, ); Nat'l Hous.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, (“Duty and liability are only imposed where both the plaintiff and the risk are foreseeable to a reasonable person.”); Rager v. Superior Coach Sales and Serv.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, cf. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 348(2), illus.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, (overturned on other grounds)).

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, P.2d 1292 (1984), “correctly implied that [the economic loss doctrine] would not apply to negligence claims by a plaintiff who has no contractual relationship with the defendant”).

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984), ¶¶ 14-17

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, 139 overruled on other grounds by Gipson, 214 Ariz. at 144 ¶¶ 14-15, 150 P.3d at 231.1 ¶13 Our reluctance to broadly recognize a duty to avoid causing purely economic loss comports with the refusal of other courts to recognize a tort

¶ 35 Owner argues that applying the economic loss doctrine would conflict with Donnelly Construction Co. v. 18 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, P.2d 1292 (1984).4 In Donnelly, a contractor relied on an architect’s plans to prepare a bid for improvements to a school complex.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984).

Hughes relies on Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , *869

¶ 5 The trial court granted Architect’s motion to dismiss, explaining in part as follows: Plaintiff relies on Donnelly Construction Company v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , and Smith v. [Arthur] Anderson [Andersen] L.L.P., 175 F.Supp.2d 1180 (D.Ariz.2001) for its argument that professional negligence claims between contracting parties are not barred by the economic loss rule....

C. ¶ 16 Lofts also argues that privity is not required for an implied warranty claim based on Donnelly Construction Co. v. *504 Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984), rejected on other grounds by Gipson v. Kasey, 496 Ariz. Adv.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1295 (1984) (“Duty and liability are only imposed where both the plaintiff and the risk are foreseeable to a reasonable person.”).

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984).

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1295 (1984); , Rudolph v. Ariz. B.AS.S.

¶ 22 The Association nevertheless contends that privity was not required for an implied warranty claim in Donnelly Construction Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, -89, -97 (1984); see also Hoffman, 159 Ariz. at 379-80, 767 P.2d at 727-28 (applying § 552 to a claim of damage from a negligent real estate appraisal).

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , and A.R.S.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, , , 1294 (1984), allege that the Defendants’ illegal activity injured them in their business or property.

Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland, allege that the Defendants’ illegal activity injured them in their business or property.