Before the Court En Banc. Opinion by Justice Saitta.
In this petition for writ of mandamus challenging a district court order granting motions for leave to amend to add claims for negligent misrepresentation against a design professional in the commercial construction context, the Court examined the economic loss doctrine’s applicability to negligent misrepresentation claims. The Court had previously left open the question of whether the economic loss doctrine barred a claim for negligent misrepresentation in Terracon Consultants Western, Inc. v. Mandala Resort Group, 125 Nev. 66, 206 P.3d 81 (2009). The original proceeding in this case stemmed from the construction of the Harmon Tower within CityCenter. The developer, MGM Mirage Design Group (“MGM”), retained an architectural firm and Perini Building Company (“Perini”) as its general contractor. The architectural firm retained the petitioner, Halcrow, to design the Harmon’s structure, and Perini hired Century Steel, Inc. (“Century”) to provide the steel installation, who ultimately assigned its assets to Pacific Coast Steel (“PCS”). Halcrow had no contract with Perini, Century, or PCS. After Perini filed a complaint against the MGM for failing to make timely payments, the MGM filed counterclaims against Perini for alleged reinforcing steel defects and other nonconforming work. Perini then filed a third-party complaint against Century and PCS, who in turn filed their own third and fourth party complaints against Halcrow, among others. Halcrow moved to dismiss Century’s third and fourth party complaints, arguing that Terracon bars unintentional tort claims against design professionals in commercial construction projects when the claimant incurs primarily economic losses. The district court dismissed Century’s and PCS’s claims for negligence, among others, but allowed Century and PCS leave to amend to allege a claim for negligent misrepresentation against Halcrow for allegedly negligently representing to Century and PCS that it would inspect and make on-site adjustments to the steel installation. The Court exercised its discretion to review this writ petition, and examined the economic loss doctrine’s application in Nevada. The Court clarified that there are certain exceptions to the economic loss doctrine where “strong countervailing considerations weigh in favor of imposing liability,” including claims for “defamation, intentionally caused harm, negligent misstatements about financial matters and loss of consortium.” However, the Court reasoned that in the context of commercial construction design professionals, contract law is better suited for resolving such claims. Therefore, the Court held that in commercial construction defect litigation, the economic loss doctrine applies to bar claims against design professionals for negligent misrepresentation where the damages alleged are purely economic. Writ of mandamus granted directing district court to vacate its order granting Century and PCS leave to amend. (Megan Starich, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
