This blog post looks at the question of when a project owner, who has a contract with the design professional, may assert an action against a design professional in negligence for purely economic losses. Actions against design professional can arise under a number of legal theories, but the two most common are contract and tort. Tort claims focus on duties imposed by law, while contract claims center on obligations agreed upon by the parties. The distinction often determines whether a plaintiff can recover purely economic losses and whether privity of contract is required.

The distinction between contract and tort is significant due to the availability of different remedies, limitations periods, and burdens of proof. It is normally to a plaintiff's advantage to get both tort and contract claims before the trier of fact when the same facts will sustain either cause of action, because access to multiple theories of recovery may permit a plaintiff to avoid legal or remedial pitfalls which may apply to one cause of action but not another. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Stone & Webster Eng'g Corp., 725 F. Supp. 656 (N.D.N.Y. 1989).