Cited by

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶¶ 24-28 (2010) (limiting contracting parties to contractual remedies rather than tort remedies “for purely economic loss from construction defects”); Salt River Project Agr.

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 14 (2010) (describing contract law as “seek[ing] to preserve freedom of contract and to promote the free flow of commerce”); Michael Pillow, Liberty Over Death: Seeking Due Process Dimensions for Freedom of Contract, 8 Fla.

Ltd. v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 35 n.4 (2010) (stating that we have “rejected Donnelly’s reliance on foreseeability to determine the existence of a duty of care for purposes of tort law”).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 11, 326, ¶ 28 (2010) (“‘Economic loss,’ as we use the phrase, refers to pecuniary or commercial damage, including any decreased value or repair costs for a product or property that is itself the subject of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, and consequential damages such as lost profits.” And a co

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 23 (2010).

4 CAL-AM v. EDAIS Decision of the Court ¶14 Relying on Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design All, Inc., ¶¶ 35-37 (2010), Cal-Am asserts that our supreme court approvingly cited Donnelly and “recognized the continuing vitality of Donnelly as to the liability in negligence of design professionals.” However, Flagstaff Affordable Housing involved an architect who was in privity of contract with the property owner.

¶ 9 (2013); Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 11 (2010).

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.

20, 1989)); cf. Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 44, (stating § 12-552 applies to actions “involving the design, engineering, or construction of improvements to real property”).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 12 (2010).

Ltd. P'ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 12 (2010).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design All., Inc., ¶ 38 (2010).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 12 (2010).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 327-28, ¶¶ 1, 39, 671-72 (2010).

¶ 9, Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 11

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶¶ 1, 11-12, 667 (2010).

Ltd. v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 40, (“Architectural contracts generally include compliance with applicable building codes and other legal design requirements as an implied term.”); Ramsey Air Meds, L.L.C., 198 Ariz. at 17 ¶ 34, 6 P.3d at 322 (“For example, when a builder contracted with a plumbing company to install p

Ltd. v. Design Alliance, Inc., P.3d 664 (2010).

Ltd. P'ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., 329, ¶¶ 11-12, 46 , 673 (2010) (defining the economic loss rule as a "common law rule limiting a contracting party to the contractual remedies for the recovery of economic losses unaccompanied by physical injury to persons or other property.”).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., P.3d 664 (2010).

Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., ¶ 2

* ¶ 1 We consider here whether the economic loss rule, as last articulated by our supreme court in Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. Partnership v. Design Alliance, Inc., , applies to bar claims brought under the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).

See Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. P'ship v. Design Alliance, Inc.

See Flagstaff Affordable Housing Ltd. P’ship v. Design Alliance, Inc., *58 325-26, ¶ 27 , -70 (2010) (“Arizona law allows home purchasers to bring contract claims for breach of the implied warranty of good workmanship and habitability even if they are not in privity with the builder.”).