Digicorp, Inc. v. AMERITECH CORP.,
Decision Date | 03 June 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 01-1833, No. 01-2258. |
Citation | 2003 WI 54,662 N.W.2d 652,262 Wis.2d 32 |
Parties | DIGICORP, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant, The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening-Plaintiff, v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-Petitioner, Dann KRINSKY, Defendant, v. BACHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent. DIGICORP, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff, The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening-Plaintiff, v. AMERITECH CORPORATION, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-Petitioner, Dann KRINSKY, Defendant, v. BACHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
262 Wis.2d 32
2003 WI 54
662 N.W.2d 652
The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening-Plaintiff,
v.
AMERITECH CORPORATION, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Respondent-Petitioner,
Dann KRINSKY, Defendant,
v.
BACHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.1
DIGICORP, INC., a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff,
The CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening-Plaintiff,
v.
AMERITECH CORPORATION, Defendant-Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross-Appellant-Petitioner,
Dann KRINSKY, Defendant,
v.
BACHER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent.
Page 33
Nos. 01-1833, 01-2258.
Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Oral argument January 23, 2003.
Decided June 3, 2003.
For Bacher Communications, Inc., there was a brief by Gregory J. Cook, Anthony P. Hahn, and Kasdorf, Lewis & Swietlik, S.C., Wausau, and oral argument by Gregory J. Cook.
For Digicorp, Inc., there was a brief by Victor E. Plantinga, Douglas W. Rose, and Rose & Dejong, S.C., Brookfield, and oral argument by Victor E. Plantinga.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Edward E. Robinson, Charles David Schmidt, and Cannon & Dunphy S.C., Brookfield, on behalf of the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers.
¶ 1. N. PATRICK CROOKS, J.
Ameritech Corporation (Ameritech) seeks review of a court of appeals'
¶ 2. This court is presented with the question of whether Wisconsin recognizes a fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine, and if so, what the elements of that exception are. In addition, we must determine whether one may avoid the application of the economic loss doctrine due to an absence of contractual privity, and whether recovery of the benefit of the bargain is prohibited where a fraud in the inducement exception applies and tort remedies are sought.
¶ 3. We hold that Wisconsin recognizes a narrow fraud in the inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine such as the one adopted in Huron Tool and Engineering Co. v. Precision Consulting Services, Inc., 209 Mich. App. 365, 532 N.W.2d 541 (1995). This rule is not as broad as the rule adopted by the court of appeals in Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 229 Wis. 2d 132, 598 N.W.2d 262 (Ct. App. 1999), which we reviewed and which resulted in a three-to-three vote on this court and a per curiam opinion,2 Douglas-Hanson Co. v. BF Goodrich Co., 2000 WI 22, 233 Wis. 2d 276, 607 N.W.2d 621. We hold, consistent with the decision in Huron Tool, that the economic loss doctrine acts as a bar
¶ 4. In addition, we hold that the language of Daanen & Janssen, Inc. v. Cedarapids, Inc., 216 Wis. 2d 395, 573 N.W.2d 842 (1998), is clear that the economic loss doctrine generally precludes recovery in tort for solely economic losses, regardless of whether privity of contract exists between the parties. We also hold that recovery of the benefit of the bargain is not permissible where the fraud in the inducement exception applies and tort remedies are sought.
¶ 5. Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals' decision and remand to the circuit court for a new trial limited to contract remedies.3
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 6. The factual and procedural background of this case is extensive and complicated, Digicorp, an
¶ 7. On April 30, 1996, Taylor sent a letter to Digicorp's President, Stewart Clark (Clark), outlining the conditions for that company and Bacher's use of what was referred to as "1099 employees." The letter stated, among other things, that a sales person had to be approved and certified by Ameritech. In addition, the letter said that Ameritech required those sales people to be 1099 employees of the authorized distributor, and to represent themselves as employees of the authorized distributor when they sold Ameritech's services. As such, the letter set forth Ameritech's expectation that Digicorp would be responsible for the actions of its 1099 employees.
¶ 8. On June 1, 1996, Digicorp and Ameritech signed a Non-Exclusive Authorized Distributor Agreement. The agreement contained a provision that either party could terminate the agreement. The agreement contained a specific provision to the effect that Ameritech could terminate the contract without any notice, in the event that Digicorp submitted any sales agreements subsequently found to contain forged customer signatures. This provision was new and had not been included in previous contracts between Ameritech and Digicorp.
¶ 9. Krinsky, through his employment at Bacher, continued to sell Ameritech Value-Link plans as one of Digicorp's 1099 employees. A few weeks later, an Ameritech employee discovered that the customer signatures on two Ameritech contracts submitted by Krinsky were forgeries. Digicorp was notified of the investigation; Krinsky then quit Bacher.
¶ 10. Bacher thereafter retrieved the Ameritech contracts from Krinsky's files and discovered that,
¶ 11. In October 1996, about three months after the forged contracts were first discovered, Ameritech exercised its right under its agreement with Digicorp and terminated Digicorp's status as an Ameritech authorized distributor. Following that, Bacher was unable to sell Ameritech products.
¶ 12. Digicorp thereafter commenced a lawsuit against Bacher to recover damages based on Bacher's hiring and supervision of Krinsky. After Digicorp determined that Ameritech (through Taylor) had been aware of Krinsky's previous forgeries, when he had been employed by another Ameritech distributor, Digicorp filed suit against Ameritech and alleged breach of contract, intentional misrepresentation, strict liability misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence by Ameritech. Digicorp also claimed it was entitled to punitive damages from Ameritech. It dismissed its suit against Bacher.
¶ 13. Ameritech counterclaimed, alleging breach of contract, indemnification, intentional misrepresentation, strict liability misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, negligent hiring, training and supervision, and unjust enrichment. In addition, Ameritech filed a third party complaint against Bacher, alleging
¶ 14. Bacher filed a counterclaim against Ameritech alleging strict liability misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful litigation, negligent hiring and supervision, breach of contract and secret rebates; it did not seek punitive damages.
¶ 15. Thereafter, Ameritech moved for summary judgment arguing, among other things, that all of the pending tort claims were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The circuit court dismissed Digicorp's claims of negligence and Bacher's claims for negligent supervision against Ameritech; however, the court withheld ruling on the economic loss doctrine and allowed the remaining claims to go to trial. During an eight-day trial, Bacher was allowed to amend its pleadings to conform to the evidence claiming against Ameritech on a theory of intentional misrepresentation as well. The circuit court refused to apply the economic loss doctrine and allowed the remaining claims to go to the jury. The circuit court reasoned that Ameritech's fraudulent activities, through Taylor's actions, placed this case within the fraudulent inducement exception to the economic loss doctrine. The circuit court stated:
Fraud and deceit, it seems to me is the very antithesis of the purposes underlying [the economic loss] doctrine. One who acts fraudulently prevents the parties from freely allocating risk by deceiving the other party about the nature of the risk that is being allocated or even creating the risk after the contract is entered into; it's inimical to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc.
...the fraud must be "extraneous to, rather than interwoven with, the contract." Id. at 219 (quoting Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652, 662 (2003) and paraphrasing Huron Tool, 532 N.W.2d at 545 ). To invoke the narrow fraud exception in Wisconsin, a plaintiff mus......
-
Kaloti Enterprises, Inc. v. Kellogg Sales Co.
...discussed above, are satisfied, and in addition, that the misrepresentation has occurred before contract formation. See Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶ 52, 262 Wis. 2d 32, 662 N.W.2d ¶ 31. Courts have generally taken three different approaches in determining whether and to ......
-
Taurus Ip v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
...sophisticated commercial parties to "pursue only their contractual remedies when asserting an economic loss claim." Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶ 34, 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652. The doctrine strives to protect the freedom of parties to allocate economic risk by contrac......
-
Tietsworth v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
...parties from pursuing tort recovery for purely economic or commercial losses associated with the contract relationship. Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp., 2003 WI 54, ¶¶ 33-35, 262 Wis. 2d 32, 662 N.W.2d [13] ¶ 24. Adopted by this court in Sunnyslope Grading, Inc. v. Miller, Bradford & Ri......
-
Table of cases
...1544-45, 276 Cal.Rptr. 214, (1990), §23:23 Determan v. Johnson , 613 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2000), §22:19 Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp ., 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 2003), §22:14 Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1985), §11:93 Donaldson v. Central Illinois ......
-
Table of Cases
...1544-45, 276 Cal.Rptr. 214, (1990), §23:23 Determan v. Johnson , 613 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2000), §22:19 Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp ., 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 2003), §22:14 Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1985), §11:93 Donaldson v. Central Illinois ......
-
Table of cases
...1544-45, 276 Cal.Rptr. 214, (1990), §23:23 Determan v. Johnson , 613 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2000), §22:19 Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp ., 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 2003), §22:14 Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1985), §11:93 Donaldson v. Central Illinois ......
-
Table of cases
...1544-45, 276 Cal.Rptr. 214, (1990), §23:23 Determan v. Johnson , 613 N.W.2d 259 (Iowa 2000), §22:19 Digicorp, Inc. v. Ameritech Corp ., 262 Wis.2d 32, 662 N.W.2d 652 (Wis. 2003), §22:14 Dixon v. International Harvester Co., 754 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1985), §11:93 Donaldson v. Central Illinois ......