“Tortious Harm” and “Contractual Harm”
Published .
The general concept
A contract claim generally enforces a promise: it asks what the parties agreed to do and what loss followed from failing to do it. A tort claim addresses a duty imposed by law, such as the duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing physical injury. Contract damages commonly aim to provide the value of the promised performance; tort damages commonly compensate for injury caused by the wrongful conduct.
How Maryland applies it
One course of conduct can sometimes support both theories, but a complaint cannot turn a contract dispute into a tort simply by using words such as “negligence” or “fraud.” Maryland asks whether the defendant owed an independent tort duty and whether the claimed harm is more than the purely economic loss of an unfulfilled bargain. The economic-loss doctrine can restrict tort recovery where the dispute concerns only financial loss from a failed product or service and there is no independent duty, physical injury, or risk of physical injury. The doctrine has exceptions and is applied in context. For example, careless repair work that physically injures someone may raise a tort claim as well as a contract dispute about the quality of the repair. The legal theory affects proof, available damages, defenses, deadlines, and who may sue.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Noble v. Bruce, 349 Md. 730 (1998).; Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP, 451 Md. 600 (2017).; Jacques v. First National Bank of Maryland, 307 Md. 527 (1986).