Also known as: economic loss no duty rule · economic loss rule · pure economic loss rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A tort doctrine, limited in Florida to products-liability cases, that bars recovery in negligence for purely economic loss unaccompanied by personal injury or property damage. Outside the products-liability context the rule no longer prevents tort claims arising from contractual relationships. Claims for lost profits or increased costs must instead proceed under contract or independent tort doctrines.
Clearline Electric negligently failed to maintain a substation, causing repeated brownouts that forced Orion Components to pay overtime wages and rush freight charges to meet its supply contracts. Orion sued Clearline in negligence for those added expenses alone, with no claim of physical damage to its equipment or personnel. The court held that the economic loss rule is limited to products-liability cases and therefore did not bar the claim.
Excavation Technologies relied on Columbia Gas's public maps when planning a project but the maps were inaccurate due to negligence. The error caused Excavation Technologies to miss a deadline and lose a valuable contract with a third party. Excavation Technologies sued Columbia Gas in negligence for the resulting lost profits. The court held that the economic loss no-duty rule barred recovery because the harm was purely pecuniary and unaccompanied by physical damage.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Yes. The rule denies recovery in negligence for pecuniary harm that does not derive from physical injury to person or property, even when the loss consists of a third party's failure to enter or perform a contract. Courts channel such claims into intentional interference or contract doctrines instead.
Supporting sources
No. The economic loss no-duty rule prevents recovery for purely economic losses such as increased overtime or overhead that result from negligent interference with contractual performance when no physical harm occurs. The claim belongs in contract, not tort.
Supporting sources
No. Although the Florida Supreme Court limited the rule to products liability, the broader common-law version continues to bar negligence recovery for purely economic loss arising from negligent interference with contracts or economic expectancies in other settings.
Supporting sources