Dannix Painting v. Sherwin-Williams Co., No. 13-1025 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDannix, a commercial painting contractor, filed suit against SWC alleging that SWC negligently misrepresented that a certain paint product SWC sold was appropriate for a particular painting project. The court concluded that the district court did not err in deciding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded Dannix's negligent misrepresentation claim. The economic loss doctrine prohibited a commercial buyer of goods from seeking to recover in tort for economic losses that were contractual in nature. The court also concluded that the district court correctly dismissed Dannix's misrepresentation complaint where the complaint did not set forth any allegations of property damage to surfaces Dannix painted. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Dannix's complaint.
Court Description: Civil case - Torts. In action alleging defendant negligently misrepresented a paint product, the district court did not err in concluding Missouri's economic loss doctrine, which provides that remedies for economic loss sustained by reason of damage or defects in products sold are limited to those under the warranty provisions of the UCC, precluded plaintiff's negligent misrepresentation claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.