Torts – Economic Loss Doctrine; Foreseeability; North Dakota Law

Where an arena sued the manufacturer of an amplifier for fire damages that allegedly were caused by a defective amplifier, summary judgment for the defendant is affirmed because under the foreseeability analysis set forth in North Dakota case law, the economic loss doctrine prevented the plaintiff from recovering tort damages.

Dissenting opinion by Riley, J. “Because (1) the North Dakota Supreme Court has approved tort recovery for damage to ‘other property’ and directed its state courts away from the foreseeability approach we erroneously predicted twenty years ago in Dakota Gasification Co. v. Pascoe Building Systems, 91 F.3d 1094 (8th Cir. 1996), and (2) even if Dakota Gasification states the relevant test, it would not control the facts of this case, I dissent.” Judgment is affirmed.

14-1853 Arena Holdings Charitable, LLC v. Harman Professional, Inc., appealed from the District of North Dakota, Beam, J.