Economic Loss Doctrine Does Not Preclude Negligence Action in Addition to Statutory Construction Defect Claim
内华达州最高法院裁定，在法定建筑缺陷索赔（第40章）中，业主可以同时提起过失侵权诉讼，经济损失原则不排除此类诉讼。
Olson v. Richard, 89 P.3d 31 (Nev. 2004) (Nevada Supreme Court--May 12, 2004) In August 1994, James and Candace Olson contracted to have a home built. The contractor abandoned the project after contracting with Aztech Plastering Co. to perform stucco work on the exterior of the house. Aztech did the stucco work but the Olsons found wanting. In particular, they objected to the rough finish. Aztech added polymer to the exterior of the stucco, but the finish remained rough. Worse yet, stucco fell off places and the Olsons discovered water intrusion into the home after a rain. Although this is not as big a problem Southern Nevada as other parts of the country, it was nonetheless a big problem for the Olsons. They hired a construction expert, who attributed the problem to the poor application of the problematic plaster. In particular, the stucco was applied a manner that blocked many of the weep holes of the windows (exterior egress openings the windows that allow accumulated rainwater to escape so that the water will not seep into the house). The Olsons made a claim against Aztech pursuant to the Nevada law known as Chapter 40, which governs construction defect claims. The Olsons alleged negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, and negligent misrepresentation. Aztech argued that a negligence claim was not permitted because the applied stucco was not a product and that tort claims for defective construction were precluded under the doctrine unless there was bodily injury or property damage to property other than the structure that was allegedly improperly constructed. The Nevada Supreme Court adopted the economic loss doctrine as a matter of common law Calloway v. City of Reno, 116 Nev. 250, 993 P.2d 1259 (2000). Calloway was not a Chapter 40 case. Although the statute was enacted before the Calloway decision, the construction problems at issue Calloway predated enactment of the statute. Consequently, Olson v. Richard presented the Nevada Supreme Court with a case of first impression: do the Calloway precedent and the economic loss doctrine operate to preclude a claim of negligence against a builder or subcontractor a Chapter 40 action, the statutory cause of action for defective construction that has supplanted Nevada common law claims of this type? The Nevada Supreme Court, with one Justice vigorous dissent, found that negligence claims against builders are permitted under Chapter 40. The trial court that had ruled favor of Aztech on the issue and the jury ruled for Aztech. The Supreme Court Olson remanded the case for a new trial with the negligence claim the case. Reviewing the language of Chapter 40, the Court found that it in no way limits a homeowner's recovery to construction defects covered by a contract or warranty. …